kellym40 film review

Neeson uses his skills to run in ‘Taken 3’

Rating 2/5

After 2012’s follow up to Taken, we get a third (and supposedly final) installment to the Taken franchise. In this film, nobody’s really “taken,” except maybe for the audience. Released in 2014, Taken 3 brings back writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen and director of the second film Olivier Megaton for a seemingly tiresome ploy to somehow capitalize on the moderate success of this particular action franchise.

This film also brings back the Mills family – Bryan (Liam Neeson), Lenore (Famke Janssen), and Kim (Maggie Grace) – and is set in Los Angeles. Bryan and Lenore are still divorced, but have a friendship going after the events of the other films and having Kim in common. This relationship puts a damper on Lenore’s current beau, Stuart (Dougray Scott), who simply asks Bryan to stop seeing her. After an opening sequence that doesn’t really get answered until much later (and is a weak plot point at best), Bryan goes to meet his ex at his place after receiving a text from her. He arrives and soon discovers she has been murdered. Of course, the police are alerted anonymously and Bryan has to fight his way out to go on the run.

That’s the premise. And that’s what moves the film into the second act and an unbelievable high-speed foot chase. Bryan leads the police through the streets to a house where he barges in on the unsuspecting couple, runs upstairs, then finally to a garage where he somehow knows there is a hole, covered with boards, underneath a car, that leads to the sewer. And I thought some of the sequences in the second film were a bit outlandish. I suppose, though, if you are an excellent former CIA operative with incredible skills, it could be slightly plausible you would have escape routes, weapons and gear hidden around the city like some great covert Easter Egg Hunt. But I digress. Bryan is on the run and his mission is to find out who murdered his wife and who framed him.

The film’s redemption is Neeson’s performance. Despite the obscure sequences, plot, and storylines, he still brings something to the character, but not at the level of his first outing. I’m sure he did what he could with the material he was given and Megaton’s direction. The addition of Forest Whitaker as Franck Dotzler, the police officer charged with bringing Mills in, but is always seemingly one step behind, offers a decent performance. However, it still lacks depth. For the most part, the performances were lackluster and 2-dimensional.

The cinematography is not as breathtaking in this film as the other two (France and Turkey) although it seems to utilize the locations well and serves the purpose of the film. But with that, the action and story doesn’t quite move along as well in this outing (not necessarily because of the cinematography, but story itself) because it is more drawn out (at nearly 20 minutes longer) than the first two installments. The camera movements made the fight scenes and chase scenes a little too fast-paced to easily follow to allow the audience to fully be aware of the surroundings and scope of the action.

Taken 3 is not about the characters being taken, it’s about the audience being taken, taken for a near 2-hour ride of quick-moving, incongruent scenes with a weak story. The characters, story and action of this film did not have enough substance for me to enjoy this film as sometimes that helps me retain interest. Maybe a better vision for this film would have helped. I don’t know. What I do know, there are other films, and even a television show, in this genre that do it better.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Mills uses his skills again in ‘Taken 2’

Rating 2/5

I suppose it was inevitable there would be a follow-up to Taken. The sequel showed us what would happen if Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) and his wife (Famke Janssen) were taken. The same writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen return, but fail to bring it to the same level as the first one. There are moments in this film where it might be exciting and interesting, but there seems to be far more inadequacies that take me out of it to fully enjoy the film.

Olivier Megaton’s direction is an attempt to follow its predecessor but falls short in its delivery of the same level of action and continuity the first one had. It still follows that this film be built around a phone call between Bryan and Kim (Maggie Grace) like in the first one when Kim was taken. If this was the thought behind these films, perhaps I could write a screenplay based on a conversation I had with a friend over the old phrase “Where’s the beef?”

The film opens in Albania where Murad Krasniqi (Rade Serbedzija), the father of one of the men Bryan killed in the first Taken film, is with his clan at the burial site of his son and the rest of the others Mills killed because they simply got in his way. So of course he vows to get Mills and make him pay for the death of his son. Never mind the fact his son seemed to take enjoyment out of taking young female tourists and making them sex slaves.

And it just so happens that Bryan is in Istanbul on a private security assignment and has brought his family along for a little R & R in the country. Of course these bad guys find out and decide to take Mills and his wife while Kim is in the hotel room preparing to get ready to meet them after a little swim. Here’s where the phone call comes in, because apparently these guys aren’t smart enough to check for and take any forms of communication away from him before they tie him up. Bryan calls his daughter to tell her that he and her mother have been taken and gives her instructions to help them escape. And of course, being a former CIA agent, he has a case filled with “emergency equipment” like hand grenades, a map and other material. Here’s a part where inconsistencies comes in to play. He tells Kim that the men who took him are going to come after her. So he helps her get out and as she is doing so she is running barefoot through the rooms and halls of the hotel and finally gets to a window. She steps out barefoot on the ledge. But as the bad guys close in, one of them notices a sandal on the floor by the window. A. Single. Sandal. She didn’t have any footwear running through the hotel, but suddenly she leaves a single sandal by the window? It’s those little things that take me out of the film.

Now I know there are probably numerous inconsistencies in various films, but it’s the execution of character, action, story and other elements in a film that can hold my interest and suspension of disbelief for the sake of the film. Taken 2 did not do that for me like the first one did. The film really left me with no real connection with the characters. Yes I was sort of rooting for Mills to kick some ass and take some names as he fights for the freedom of himself and his family, but a real emotional connection was lost to me in this film. Thankfully it does move rather quickly and only has a 92-minute runtime.

Taken 2 plays as a slick, fast-paced action flick but its substance leaves something to be desired. If fast paced action is what interests and entertains you, then Olivier Megaton and company might just have the thing for you. But if you’re looking for a little more, then this film probably misses the mark.

kellym40 film review

Bryan Mills has a particular set of skills in ‘Taken’

Rating 3/5

In 2008’s Taken, Liam Neeson stars as Bryan Mills, a former CIA operative who uses his particular set of skills to rescue his daughter while on a trip to Europe with a friend. Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen penned the script that gave director Pierre Morel a framework of action and a world in which these characters could play.

I don’t think the film is an accurate depiction of what the CIA is or does, but it does show what a father of Mills’ background might do in a situation such as the one depicted in the film. From the start, Mills is not particularly happy about his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) going off to Europe to “study” with a friend. Come to find out they are there to party and have fun. He already has a somewhat strained relationship with his ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) and when Kim tells him she wants to go to Europe he immediately is apprehensive because he knows how cruel the world can be for people, especially two teenage girls. But through some assurances, he allows his daughter to go and thus sets the action of the film in motion.

The plot was simple enough I suppose. Was it accurate? Probably not entirely. Was it believable? Not necessarily. But it had a decent set up and plenty of action to keep me in the film. The characters seemed to be drawn efficiently with enough characteristics to make the bad guys bad and the good guys good. Neeson portrays Mills with precision while seemingly being a master of every skill imaginable that aids him in finding his daughter. It almost seems, though, that if all CIA agents were as skilled as Bryan Mills, the world’s terrorists should be afraid, very afraid. I would say it is probably one of Neeson’s better performances. Kim is not seen through most of the film after she is abducted, but Grace still brings a frightened reality to the character. Janssen is not seen much through the second act either, but delivers a believable and honest performance.

It seems the film was set up around the phone call that Mills makes to his daughter to check up on her after she failed to call when she arrived at her destination. About this time, men who the girls just meet enter and abduct the unsuspecting visitors. He tells his daughter that she will be taken and he tells the kidnapper on the phone that he will find him and he will kill him. With that, the kidnapper says “Good luck.” So, with the help from his CIA pals, he manages to get the name of the kidnapper and Mills begins his cross-country trek to get his daughter back.

Mills becomes a one man army and stops at nothing in his pursuit. It does make for an entertaining film even with some of the sequences seemingly implausible. But supposedly with the skills and expertise that Bryan Mills has, nothing is impossible (or improbable) in the course of the film.

There were moments in Taken that seemed a little outlandish, almost preposterous. But the film had enough action to keep me in the film and entertained. It’s one of those films that could make you go “hmmm,” but still has the action, story, and characters to be a watchable film.

kellym40 film review

More than heroics prevail in ‘Seven Samurai’

Rating 4/5

There has been much said about this film. Many consider it a great film. Obviously, it was great enough to spawn a remake, several war stories, and the idea of the group protagonists assembled together on a single mission. It can be said it has even introduced the spaghetti western. Moreover, this film, and Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress, even gave inspiration to a young George Lucas to create his Star Wars saga. In that regard, it is most certainly a great film.

This film was released in 1954 and it might have been considered a great film – even a masterpiece – at the time, and I enjoyed the film for those reasons. The elements such as cinematography, sound, and music were great attributes and added to the film’s story and tone. However, the length of the film, at nearly three and a half hours (with an actual intermission), just appeared a little lengthy. It was a little tricky to navigate the long running time. During my first viewing, I had to stop about a quarter way through because of a reluctant interruption and it took a little wile to get back to continue the film. I was able to view a little more before I was interrupted again. Finally, I was able to sit down and view it in its entirety. I believe I was able to appreciate it more in that last viewing. Seven Samurai is more than a classic story of heroism and the underdog being triumphant over the forces of evil, it is a story of rich Japanese culture and tradition within the 1600’s, for which this film is set. The length here is the same reason why I thought The Magnificent Seven seemed a bit lengthy and “drag” in some places because some of those sequences of character and story development didn’t work quite as well for me in the Western remake.

The plot centers around a small farming village that is terrorized by bandits who take most of the food they have, barely leaving enough for the villagers to survive. The fearful villagers convene and there is some disagreement as to what the best course of action is. One thing is for sure that they are fed up with the way things are. It is later agreed that they hire samurai to help them fight the bandits. A small group of villagers go on a quest to find the samurai and ultimately hire seven. Of course the farmers have little to offer in the way of funds, so they repay the samurai by giving them rice and shelter until the village is free from the tyranny of the bandits. And during this time, it is not appropriate for farmers to be mixing with samurai (or vice versa). This is where social conventions come in play. This also leads to a subplot of the film where one of the local female villagers falls in love with one of the seven samurai. Eventually discovered, there is discussion about the situation and a common ground is met to appease the modern audience.

Questions arise during this heroic, social commentary. Why do the samurai take the job in the first place? What propels them to put their lives up for these farmers? The samurai are bound by honor and so to keep with societal obligations, they help stand with the farmers to fend off the bandits. The samurai begin training and preparing the locals to fight. The samurai lay out a strategic plan to battle these ruthless bandits and it is clearly seen the samurai and bandits persevere through each of the battles. However, the bandits soon realize the village is being well defended but continue their assault until the climactic showdown.

The film was beautifully crafted and has all of the elements to make a great film. The story and characters were there and it skillfully showed the life of the samurai and villagers and their place in the social caste system of the 17th Century. For some films, lengthy run times can be detrimental. But if masterfully done, it can add so much to a film as it did with Seven Samurai.

 

kellym40 film review

Revenge and action ensue in ‘John Wick’

Rating 4/5

 There are things that can be said about action films – or really with any film for that matter – When they are executed well, it can make for an entertaining film. Director Chad Stahelski has created a surprisingly engaging film. Derek Kolstad’s script blends story and action seamlessly so the viewer is drawn into the immersive world that is created for these characters to exist. And that world is the world of hit men. I suppose this would be similar to the world in which the mafia existed in the early part of the twentieth century.

The story follows a former hit man, John Wick, played by Keanu Reeves, who attempts to recover from the loss of his wife. After a brief encounter with some bad men, they return to his home, steal his car and kill his dog (a final gift from his deceased wife). Unbeknown to the attackers, they are dealing with a highly trained, determined individual (because as one character puts it, “He is the man you send to kill the boogieman”). Wick then goes on a manhunt to track them down and kill them because the dog represented the last bit of humanity and healing John had from his late wife. It was a symbol that he could move on, and when they killed the dog, they stole that from him.

The film also stars Michael Nyqvist and Alfie Allen as the antagonists who give John impossible opposition, Willem Dafoe, Dean Winters, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo, Adrianne Palicki, and Bridget Moynahan. Every performance captures the individuality of each character and adds so much to the dark world the story is set. And before going further, I feel Reeves’ performance as John Wick is one of his best. It seemed like he had a string of films where he appeared to play the same character, as he did not vary his physicality or have much change in his vocal inflection. He carried that some through this performance, but it fit this role well.

I liked the setting and tone of the film and the fight scenes, both gun and the hand-to-hand fighting, were very well choreographed and executed. The well-placed action scenes with some humor thrown in made for an enjoyable film. It was one of Reeves’ best and very commendable for first time director Stahelski. It flowed along at a decent pace and at 101 minutes was just enough for the story to develop without being slowed down or seem rushed. I can’t imagine a longer run time for the fear that it would begin to be convoluted with unnecessary sequences and any shorter, the story would not have developed as smoothly as it did. Something I enjoy in film is the use of time. Here, the film begins towards the end and then goes back a little and traces the events in which led up to that moment, then the action of the story moves forward.

Overall I really enjoyed the film and was thoroughly entertained the whole way through. Reeves has done very well with his performance in this film as the title character. The action scenes are excellent; and the sound editing and mixing are great and fit like a glove with the tone of the film.

kellym40 film review

Tarantino serves up bloody justice in ‘The Hateful Eight’

Rating 3.5/5

In viewing this latest feature from the mind of Quentin Tarantino, it might be safe to say that there is probably not another storyteller quite the same. In saying that, Tarantino is probably an acquired taste to most people. I am always engaged in his unique style and use of dialogue and camera movement. The Hateful Eight is Tarantino’s eighth feature film and holds nothing back. Although, it was a bit different than some of his other films it still delivered despite being a bit more expository through most of the film. All of the elements come together here to bring this Western whodunit mystery to life.

The action takes place in Wyoming during a blizzard where the characters are gathered together, much like an Agatha Christie mystery. Much of action takes place at Minnie’s haberdashery. Passengers from a stagecoach, on its way to Red Rock, take refuge from the brewing storm. Maj. Marquis Warren (played magnificently by Samuel L. Jackson), an ex-Union soldier of the Civil War, a rough bounty hunter John Ruth (a whiskered Kurt Russell), his handcuffed prisoner Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason-Leigh), Chris Mannix (a wonderful Walton Goggins), who claims to be Red Rock’s new sheriff, and the coach driver O. B. (James Parks) come in and meets another motley group at the haberdashery like Tim Roth, who plays Oswaldo Mobray, the new hangman of Red Rock, cowboy Joe Cage (Michael Madsen), Bob (Demián Bichir), a Mexican who claims to be keeping an eye on the place for the absent Minnie, and Sanford Smithers (Bruce Dern), a Confederate general.

As mentioned, it took a while for the story to really get going but Tarantino’s skillful use of dialogue, camera shots, and suspense building kept the story moving right down to the moment when we find the coffee poisoned, bullets start flying, blood spurts, and finally even a good old fashioned hanging. The way this story is told seemed somewhat reminiscent of Hitchcock and his way of building suspense. And when the story starts to unravel the mystery – BAM – the audience is pulled back and flashes back to the early part of that day before we meet estranged characters from the stagecoach. I was kind of waiting for this part too. In most of his films, he does not use a conventional linear line of storytelling (as this one was beginning to look like). He seems to jump and shift time to bring another sense visual storytelling.

As the flashback conveyed, it tied the story together in an intriguing way. And we finally find out why the characters have to keep nailing the front door shut every time someone enters or exits the building. We are fortunate to meet Minnie (Dana Gourrier), Six-Horse Judy (Zoe Bell), Sweet Dave (Gene Jones), and Domergue’s brother Jody (Channing Tatum) and a few others. The acting was excellent in bringing Tarantino’s words to life in his usual, in your face, entertaining way.

The Hateful Eight was a little different but still had the signs of a classic Tarantino film. That style is not seen often in many of the great visual storytellers of today. His creative mind always culminates in a style that can be pleasing and maybe a bit unnerving at the same time. He may not be for everyone, but he certainly doesn’t let that stop him from bringing his visions to the screen.

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘The Magnificent Seven’ … A classic story retold…again

Rating 2/5 

When Akira Kurosawa’s 1956 film The Seven Samurai was remade into a stirring Western (The Magnificent Seven) and released in 1960, John Sturges directed a fun, colorful, and exciting adventure and one of the great classic Westerns of all time. Although I found the 1960 film version a bit slow at times during the first act, there was enough to keep me interested and entertained. This 2016 Antoine Fuqua directed version kept the story of the original, but with some character and setting changes.

The story begins in 1879 in a small frontier town in Rose Creek. Enter the antagonist Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), who is operating a gold mining business, and he comes into town to a church during a service and offers money to the residents for their land. They can take the offer or suffer the consequences. After burning the church and killing a few citizens, a widow, Emma Cullen (Hayley Bennett), decides she isn’t going to accept Bogue’s tyranny. She searches for some men who could help her people stand up to Bogue. She soon meets an officer of the court Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington), who agrees to help her. The group in this version is much more diverse than in the 1960 original. Chisolm brings on Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt), a Mexican (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), a Civil War sharpshooter Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke) and his Asian pal, Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee). They soon find Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio) and a Comanche Indian Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier).

Like the original, it had some big names with a few relatively unknown actors in the roles. Washington delivers a decent performance, but it lacked energy and the personality to really care enough about the character. Pratt brought his usual charm and charisma, but the character still remained insufficient to truly feel for the character. The remaining five also failed to provide any real connection. However, Sarsgaard nearly shines as the greedy villain. He provides a performance that makes you want a satisfying character death.

There were aspects I liked about this film, and it had its highs and lows, but it seemed to lack the energy and overall pace of the original. On its own, this film is a decent Western. But viewing it as a remake, it lacks something from the original. I did like the fact that the protagonist (Chisolm) and antagonist (Bogue) had more of a background connection and the bad guy’s demise was a little more satisfying in this version than the original. Additionally, the film had a decent build up as the seven were rounded up and the tension was building until the final confrontation, it didn’t have the same impact as the original. And while the final climactic battle between Bogue and his army of men and the citizens of Rose Creek and the seven was cinematic, it seemed a little more than just the underdog beating the odds and coming out victorious. I wanted to like this film more, but overall, it just didn’t catch my interest as much.

I have yet to view the original source (The Seven Samurai), but with an acclaimed remake in 1960 that spawned three sequels, it hardly seems another remake is needed here.

kellym40 film review

‘R. I. P. D.’ shows promise, but fails to deliver

Rating 2/5

The story surrounding the film may have looked good on paper, but did not seem to translate well to the finished product. The film had a somewhat interesting concept, but never seemed to build enough traction to really execute a great picture. The premise is we have Roy (Jeff Bridges), an old West law enforcement officer, and Nick (Ryan Reynolds), a member of the Boston Police Department, come back in different bodies and now are members of the Rest In Peace Department (R. I. P. D.). Their job is to capture people who have cheated their judgments and return them for their final judgment.

Robert Schwentke directed the screenplay by writers Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi. And it doesn’t appear there is clear evidence as to why this film did not succeed more. It seemed to fail with a majority of critics and the general movie-going public. Some may have felt the film was unfunny and uninteresting. I tend to agree – to an extent. Perhaps the real problem with it was the direction. Through most of the film, I felt the pace of the film was slow. It was like watching a live theatre performance when the actors have low energy and the play just seems to drag.

I only enjoyed (if you can call it that) this film for the fairly decent concept. But there appeared to be several similarities with Men in Black. It almost succeeded in being a bad rip-off of Men in Black. Or, it did succeed in being a bad rip-off of the aforementioned film. It depends on how you look at it I guess. The climax of the R.I.P.D. just appeared uneventful as the heroes try to stop the “bad guys” from operating a device that is to open a gateway to unleash actual “hell on Earth.”

Although, the film did have some varying characters, they mostly appeared as weak, dull, two-dimensional characters. One might expect more from the likes of Jeff Bridges, Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Bacon. That’s not to say the performances were necessarily bad, but they just didn’t seem to have much to work with in the script and direction. The seemingly sole character with any sort of redeeming qualities was Mary-Louise Parker’s Proctor, the “manager” of the Rest in Peace Department. She seemed to be a simple and straight forward, while still being a tough leader who runs a tight ship in the department. You might believe the actors had fun with the material (which appears to be what the film was meant to be – a fun, summer flick), but that just didn’t work for me completely.

R.I.P.D was released in the summer of 2013. It is evident the filmmakers were trying to make this a summer blockbuster with action, comedy, and a strong use of CGI. However, they lacked in story and character development, efficient use of comedy, and an apparent waste of time and talent with its lead actors. In R.I.P.D., we find a film that struggles with itself and leaves behind a skeleton of a potentially good film.

 

 

kellym40 film review

A powerful force is set in motion in ‘Unstoppable’

Rating 3.5/5

This film, based on actual events, suggests what happens when determination and experience are brought forward to solve a pending disaster. All of the elements – story, character, action, and cinematography – come together as director Tony Scott takes Mark Bomback’s script and spins a great story into an action flick that delivers some fine entertainment.

The story begins when an engineer (Ethan Suplee) mistakenly sets a train in motion. It happens when Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) takes on a new guy, Will Colson (Chris Pine), on another train. We soon discover the two trains are on the same track. To add to the thrills, the unmanned train is carrying toxic chemicals and is headed towards a not so rural area. The person in charge of operations for the railroad, Connie Hooper (Rosario Dawson), is alerted of the situation and discusses with other personnel how to handle the situation. Meanwhile, an executive in the main office, Galvin, played by Kevin Dunn, is more concerned about the cost of losing the train than arriving at a solution that would be beneficial for everyone. After failed attempts at stopping the train (which was warned by Barnes from his 20 plus years of railroading experience that everyone fails to listen to), Hooper begins to take Barnes’ experience into play, despite the continued hesitations from Galvin. A new plan is made on how to slow the train down and it begins to work for a little bit. However, a new plan is made and Barnes and Colson spring to action as a final attempt to stop the train.

Scott uses masterful shots of the train speeding down the track as news choppers hover around providing coverage of the impending disaster. The high-speed velocity of the train adds to the action and builds up, as the train gets closer to the populated town. Character development is somewhat lacking in this film, but that doesn’t seem to really matter as the attention is focused on the actions Barnes and Colson and their actions on stopping the train. There are some character moments from the pair that dives into their lives and explains where they are at that particular time and place, and that only adds to caring what happens to them and whether or not they will succeed. Galvin is your typical greedy executive. Hooper is the character that seems to lean towards her own judgment or executive judgment rather than the experienced employee and soon changes her views. These characters, and the supporting cast, play their characters well enough to care about a few and add to the tension to dislike a few (like Galvin).

Unstoppable is a full throttle train ride of action, tension, a little suspense, and some humor thrown in to make this film an enjoyable film and delivers enough to keep you on the track.

 

 

 

kellym40 film review

Feel good feeling about ‘The Patriot’

Rating 3.5/5

While the film may not be historically accurate, it was a good source of fun, summer entertainment when it was released in June 2000. Set in the backdrop of the Revolutionary War, The Patriot offers some good stuff that makes for an enjoyable summer film – action, developed characters, impeccable acting, strong dialogue, and so on – something that is typically not seen in a Roland Emmerich summer blockbuster.

Robert Rodat penned the script for Emmerich to direct. It doesn’t seem the filmmakers were much on making a historically accurate film, as they were to make a Hollywood film based on history. Taking events and battles from the actual war, Rodat places characters (based on actual historical figures) within that world making their existence seem more real, adding the Hollywood touch of a simple hero pitted against a seemingly unbeatable villain.

The Patriot stars Mel Gibson as Benjamin Martin (a character based on several actual characters from the War – Francis Marion, Elijah Clarke, Daniel Morgan, Andrew Pickens, and Thomas Sumter), a religious family man trying to put the ugliness of war behind him. He is a widower who has seven children he protects dearly. When the villain, British Col. William Tavington (Jason Isaacs), who is based on Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton, arrives with his British soldiers on Martin’s property, kills one of his youngest sons, arrests Martin’s eldest son Gabriel (Heath Ledger) and takes him away, and burns Martin’s house down, this pushes Martin to the one thing he wanted to avoid – going into war himself. He pursues Tavington, with two of his other sons, to free Gabriel. With militia style tactics, Martin succeeds in freeing Gabriel and he is thrust into the war to take vengeance upon Tavington. Martin then helps organize a militia, and with the help from his friend Col. Harry Burwell (Chris Cooper), puts forth strategies to stop Tavington and the British. After a series of incidents where the American militia bests British soldiers, Gen. Cornwallis (Tom Wilkinson) develops a hatred for these “peasants and farmers” and wants Martin gone too.

Gibson gives an effective, emotional performance, as does Ledger. He was a bright newcomer at the time of the film’s release at 21 years old. Just nearly eight years later, he passed away. He is gone, but not forgotten.

Isaacs plays Tavington straight faced and with conviction. He is virtually emotionless, always with a smirk and evil in his eyes. Wilkinson portrays Cornwallis as somewhat pompous and arrogant, which seems to be Hollywood’s take on the character. This creates another character to dislike and of course root for the hero to win.

Well-choreographed fight and battle scenes, great acting with developed characters, wonderful cinematography, and a musical score to punch the dramatic narrative through the film. It makes for a more satisfactory film than the usual bang, bang, big explosions, and heavy use of special effects.