The Last Castle

Rating:
Summary: Good actors, terrible movie
Review: If you're a big fan of James Gandolfini, as I am, and if you are curious to see how he works with the excellent actor Robert Redford, as I was, then see this movie. Otherwise, don't.

I blame it all on the director and studio.

Two of the business's finest male actors have their well-thought-out, restrained performances reduced to one-dimensional, flat characterizations that do not give us positive or negative feelings about either the "good guy" or "bad guy." We are not permitted to see Gandolfini's cunning or underlying evil (he underplays them just right; but the director hides them under reaction shots). We are not permitted to see Redford's flaming intelligence and self-discipline, just his stupidity. Bad bad bad.

The script was no doubt ruined by the studio and a complicit director. A good idea for a simple movie, filled with interesting psychological qualities, was mashed into a typical-of-the-genre overblown Hollywood flick with special FX and helicopters. (Of course! what's a movie without helicopters?) Thankfully, there are few such left in the can to release. Time to move on.

The b/w TV movie, "Fail-Safe," directed by George Clooney, was how THE LAST CASTLE should have been done, given the two premises (below):

1. WHAT IF a violent prison population had mostly prisoners who'd been in the military and still maintained military and patriotic feelings?

2. WHAT IF a new prisoner was one respected deeply by the warden and how would they define their new relationship?

Great premises. Lousy movie. Gandolfini fans, see it and weep.

(Oh: Ted Turner happened to sit near me that day. In the men's room I heard him call it "hokey." He's a nicer guy than I.

Rating:
Summary: Underrated!!
Review: I actually went to see this film with some dread, mainly wondering what kind of violent rebellion against corrupt authority story was being released into the collective psyche in the wake of the terrorist attacks. However, it was so different from what I expected from the trailer, I saw it a second time. I have to say I'm surprised so many reviews are so negative. I wish more films would try to combine the entertaining aspects of Hollywood pyrotechnics with interesting psychological interplay among the characters pulled off by truly skilled actors. Why does it have to be one or the other?? Why give implausibility a pass in completely over-the-top films like Mission Impossible and focus so much on it in any action film that dares to actually do some character development? Who cares whether a three-star general would actually be sentenced in this way, etc., etc.?

As a woman, I also thought that even the implausible aspects of the plot created the basic scaffolding for a story that provides an interesting perspective on the social lives of men. I've always found the way men constantly and automatically establish hierarchies among themselves both baffling and fascinating. Even if this film is a melodrama, it provides an enjoyable peek at pride, envy, and admiration. Moreover, the roles of the hero and villain are more nuanced than most reviews credit. Gandolfini makes the same combination of power and insecurity of Tony Soprano work in this film. Redford marshals his sheer charisma to make it seem plausible that he would generate the intended emotions in those surrounding him. Yet his disconnection with his own daughter brings flaws beyond the infraction landing him in prison that keep the character human. The utter lack of relationship revealed in her stilted visit was as tragic than the humiliation you feel for him throughout his prison odyssey.

Go see it realizing liberal license is taken in order to include the action sequences that audiences have reliably been shown to enjoy. The main attraction is the blend of pure entertainment with the pleasure of seeing how skilled actors can make somewhat caricatured roles work. And the modern-day castle warfare battle is good fun to boot!

Rating:
Summary: Just when we want to cheer for the good guys
Review: Hollywood's timing has seldom been "spot-on", so to speak; certainly not recently. This movie is just one more example. Aside from all the other criticisms from the other reviwers, the most obvious fact is that this movie decided to launch right after the World Trade Center attack. "What America Really Wants" - I know I'm trying to speak for a lot of people here - is a movie where the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, not some movie where the director thinks he's being original to make the good guys bad, etc. Are we really 'sposed to believe that all these prisoners are angels at heart?

Typical Rod Lurie fair. Had I known that I would have seen something more high brow - like "Max Keeble" or something...

Rating:
Summary: Redford is Back!!
Review: Why can't there be more actors like Robert Redford? The answer: there is only one Robert Redford. Why see The Last Castle? The answer: Because this is exactly the type of film where Redford shines.

Redford plays a three star general who is sent to a military prison for disobeying, though heroically doing so, an executive order. When he arrives at the prison he is greeted by James Gandolfini, the colonel in charge of the prison, who seems to be in awe of his new inmate. They go over the rules and then Gandolfini over hears Redford taking a shot at his battlefield memorabilia colllection and it becomes evident these two men might not see eye to eye for very long. Almost right away the prisoners start coming to Redford and complaining of mistreatment by the colonel, but Redford says his fighting days are over. However after an incident involing a young marine Redford starts to see what the men are talking about. When the tension starts to mount it becomes clear this prison, or castle, is not big enough for the colonel and the general.

The Last Castle is a very entertaining movie. After I saw it I felt like it left to many questions in the plot unanwered, but I hardly was asking myself these questions while I was watching the film. The acting in this film is the best part. General Irwin was custom made for Redford. Any Redford fan can see this is the classic Redford we love. James Gandolfini was very impressive as the colonel, and Clifton Collins Jr. also did a nice turn as Agulara. For anyone who has not seen You Can Count On Me, Mark Ruffalo, who plays the prison booky, Yates, is a young actor of enormous promise. The plot in this film had a lot of holes, but Rob Lurie (The Contender) did a very nice job filling them in. This film was well shot and well directed, Lurie can tell a story. I really got a feel for the mens confinement in the prison.

I think it is worth watching for Redford alone, but this is a solid film worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: A REAL Movie Star in Action
Review: The Last Castle is about a man who wants desperately to play soldier even though he isn't one. And it's about another man who is a soldier who doesn't necessarily want to be one anymore, but circumstances make him realize who he is--a soldier and a leader of men. It's been said that a movie is only as good as its villain--if that's true, then Gandolfini has helped propel a movie to greatness. And Redford reminds all of us what a real movie star is about: presence and charisma.

There is a bit of disbelief suspension required to enjoy this movie, but not any more than is required to enjoy Star Wars or From Dusk Til Dawn. The internal logic of the movie is fine, although it's pretty unlikely that this would ever happen in real life. That's no big deal, because what really matters in this movie is the way Redford makes you feel. If you don't leave the movie standing a little taller and feeling a little prouder of what it means to be an American, I'd be very surprised indeed.

Rating:
Summary: I saw it for free and regretted it.
Review: I saw The Last Castle at a preview screening in San Diego (they passed out questionnaires afterwords to get audience feedback). While some people in the theater liked this movie, I hated it. This surprised me because I am capable of enjoying action flicks for the action alone--if it's good action. But the filmakers here obviously think their audience is a bunch bumkins. The characters are just cardboard cutouts calculated to make the largest common denominator of audience boo or cheer--whatever the plot calls for at the moment.

But I would have forgiven all that if the action had been believable. It wasn't. There's an uprising in a military prison where guard towers are blown up and the prison guards fight back with RUBBER bullets. HUH? And the way the prisoners suddenly pull out an arsenal of improvised weapons reminded me of the way Jerry could always pull a hammer twice his size from behind his back and whack Tom over the head. I heard a lot of people saying "It's just a movie" afterwards--always a bad sign. To those of you fond of saying that, what you should be saying is "It's just a BAD movie". The Last Castle will get points for patriotism in view of recent events, but if you're going for patriotism you're better off watching Band of Brothers on cable or renting Private Ryan one more time. Please avoid this movie and send a strong message to filmmakers that we're not as dumb as their accountants depend on us to be.

Rating:
Summary: Awful. "Victory" without Pele.
Review: I saw this movie last night at a free screening, and am still stunned. If it had not been free, I would have walked out.

The main problem is the writing. The movie is all concept, and the concept is superficially appealing but fundamentally stupid. A legendary 3-star combat general sent to prison for 10 years for ignoring an order of the President? When MacArthur ignored Truman he was fired, and then RAN for President.

The flawed concept might have been redeemed by superior execution, but the execution here is chock-full of holes. Are there really so many West Point graduates in Military Prison that there is a standing policy on whether they can keep their academy rings? Are the guards really so stupid that they could not notice that the prisoners were building a two-story catapult contraption in the middle of the prison yard? Can you really crash the tail end of a helicopter into a guard tower and walk away with a few scratches?

No war or prison movie cliche is omitted, and every "surprise" is predictable if you have seen any prison or war movie. False climaxes and manipulative appeals to patriotic impulse abound. Some of these manipulations are effective, but that does not make them any less bogus.

Poor Gandolfini. His character has no real motivation and is scarcely worth revolting against. I guess his sibilant "s's" and prissy diction (He pronounces "the" with a long-e! He enunciates all his consonants!) rubbed Redford the wrong way. Redford's saintly military man is an appealing archetype but the story does not give him sufficient reason to put an entire prison population and its guards at risk. (One of the problems with the concept is that a prison revolt, and particularly one in a military prison, likely results in fatalities, and both sides in the fighting are American soldiers. The movie avoids this, cheaply and unbelievably, by arming the guards with only rubber bullets and by permitting the prison to be destroyed with only one (I think) guard or prisoner death).

The movie this most reminded me of was John Huston's ridiculous POW's vs. Nazi's soccer game in "Victory" (with Stalone and Caine), but at least that movie had Pele. The movies are similar in that their basic concepts were so stupid that they probably could not work.

I wish I could say something positive about the movie. I can only hope that the version I saw was not finished and was subject to additional editing.

Rating:
Summary: NOT SO MERRY CAMELOT
Review: When watching this excellent film, one must remember that this is a military prison, so one wouldn't expect the usual let's break in the new kid's butt or stab someone in the showers. THE LAST CASTLE makes sure the viewer understands that even if these guys are criminals and incarcerated, they are still soldiers and deserve the dignity and respect any human being deserves. It is the commandant's downfall that his lack of respect for anyone other than himself ushers in a new regime.
Robert Redford is very good in the role of the General Irwin. At first, he seems reticent and willing to serve his ten year sentence, one that he realizes is justified. James Gandolfini brings a smarmy arrogance to his role as the commandant who smoozes all over Redford on his initial meeting, but then when Redford makes note of the fact that Gandolfini has never served time out on the battlefield, Gandolfini's jealousy prompts him to treat Redford just as he does everyone else! When several inmates inform Redford of some highly suspicious deaths, he decides to lead them in a takeover of the prison.
The supporting cast is brilliant: Mark Ruffalo, Delroy Lindo, Steve Burton, Paul Calderon, Samuel Ball, Jeremy Childs, Clifton Collins jr. and Brian Goodman among them.
Director Rod Lurie (The Contender) keeps things going and the climax battle is a doozy!
A wonderful film that is both inspirational and thought-provoking. I liked it very much!!!

Rating:
Summary: Weak Screenplay
Review: I used to listen to Rod Lurie on KABC talk radio each Saturday. He had a show on movies and he was very entertaining. His views were strong and very unlike the political correctness that started to sweep this country. I remember when he got his first screenplay together and had to leave the show to direct his first movie. He is the rare movie critic that actually switched careers to make movie. For that, he deserves respect by all.

Now...this film was weak. I agree, the core antagonist/ protagonist relationship was weak...in fact, very weak. The warden was insulted because he has never really done a tour of duty, so collecting war memorabilia is for the weak. This is his soul motivation to prove himself. Yes, man is that fragile, but it needed to be developed thoroughly to base an entire movie on.

The rest of the flic makes one wonder if these guys are really in a prison. There is almost no conflict among the prisoners...they seem so united and too respectful of Redford's character. The movie lacked energy and intensity. The scene with the rocks that Redford dragged went on and on with no climax that moved me.

In short, this was a good looking Hollywood movie that was boring...you keep wondering why this movie was made. Maybe on repeat viewings it will be insightful...however not by me. I'm glad I borrowed it from the library!

Keep trying Rod!

Rating:
Summary: Slightly entertaining, not worth owning
Review: I'm glad I saw this film on HBO instead of paying money to rent it. While it was moderately entertaining, I wouldn't be interested in adding it to my home movie collection.

The film starts out with two incidents that it fails to follow up on. The first is a fight in the military prison between two inmates. The music and fight leads you to believe that this will be like a lot of prison films: people leading very hard lives, getting beat up on a daily basis, and having to fight to survive. There was virtually none of this. None of the prisoners are the least bit scary, and you expect them to hug each other by the final scene. Robert Redford is immediately given respect for being a general, and doesn't have to earn anything for himself.

The second surprise is that Redford's situation is left a mystery until halfway through the film. It's alluded to several times early on that he is a 3 star general and he doesn't deserve to be in prison. When it is finally revealed why he is in prison, it is a letdown. You're expecting it to be a fairly prominent part of the film, and he's portrayed as someone who doesn't deserve to be there. The director brushes over the explanation and the viewer learns that Redford, like every other prisoner, DESERVES to be in jail. This makes it very difficult to root for him when he decides to lead a gang of murderers and prisoners in an uprising against the warden.

The other main problem with this film, is that Gandolfini doesn't come off as a very bad character. Unlike the classic prison movies, you have a prisoner who deserves to be in jail, fighting against a warden who is supposed to be evil, but is never developed fully enough to show this.

The whole time through the end of this movie, I kept thinking, these guys are killing innocent American soldiers who were stationed at the prison and are simply following orders. While not many are killed, there are definitely a couple who go down permanently. I'm supposed to be excited about this?

Overall, a lackluster hero, a weak villain, and a lack of a single escape attempt makes this a very weak prison movie. This movie is tailor-made for Dolph Lundgren or Jean Claude Van Damme, not Robert Redford.