AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

jimel98 Let's get a few things out of the way first. For one thing, it has all the feel of a TV movie even a TV movie cast other than George C. Scott (one of the FINEST actors ever-NOT sarcasm) and Martin Sheen in his early career. Otherwise, this has made for TV all over it, even the credits have that second rate feel.Many things happen that are very believable but there are plenty of things that make you go, "Hmmm?" Just a quick example that could be considered a spoiler, when Scott leaves the hospital, WHERE DID HE GET THE CLOTHES? And if they wanted to keep him there, I have a hard time believing his wallet would be left for him.And why did he have to kill so many folks (a guard, two cops, at least one soldier) who were as responsible for what was going on as much as HE was? They had families but eh, screw that, "I HAVE A GRUDGE!" A righteous grudge or not, these folks didn't kill anyone, but now their families grieve. It took the hero out of it and made him a douchebag.OK, that's off my chest. Whew.I saw this movie when it came out in 1972 and I liked it. After I had seen "Patton" I couldn't think of a GCS movie I wouldn't like, and I don't recall seeing one either. This movie has its flaws but it makes a statement and makes it clear. If you must experiment with stuff, don't do it anywhere near innocent people and if you screw up, rush up to the nearest podium and scream, "We are VERY sorry. This was a MAJOR screw up and we are doing everything we can to rectify it!" Some would say don't do these experiments, but hey, this is the real world and this stuff, sometimes has to happen. Yeah, the REAL world where there are folks who hate us, want to kill us and will do whatever it takes, maybe like flying planes into buildings or potentially releasing gas that we really should now how to deal with.Politics aside, GCS's character, Dan Logan was angry, and very rightfully so. He was being screwed, figured it out, and went for revenge. He apparently knew he was dying so, why not REALLY get back at those who wronged him. I understand and almost applaud his actions. I stress, ALMOST (see above). No time for a law suit when you're about to check out, right? The photography was good, the script was actually quite good but lots of clichés. Scott, that guy couldn't turn in a bad performance if it was required of him. The supporting cast did a fine job as well, even his kid who for a good portion of the movie just had to convulse and bleed. He bled well and his convulsions were to die for.Bad joke, but I'm not deleting it.Overall, the scariness of the potential real life stuff is there and this movie really makes you think. I caught it for the first time in YEARS on YouTube last night and I was so glad I did. Now if I could only find some more of his classics that for some reason just don't get shown. "Oklahoma Crude"? Where ARE YOU?

nadase This film, as did a lot of 70's films, works best at the symbolic level. When I finished watching this, I felt director Scott had tried to channel Italian director Antonioni ("L'avventura," "Blowup," etc.). This is a courageous move, as this is billed as an action-revenge movie, a genre which tends not to require too much mental engagement from the viewer but the willingness to get to the cheap-thrill roller-coaster ride. As a three-act screenplay, its effect is much more subtle. It actually may be said that this is an anti-action film due to its subtle character development dynamic. The faces carry it, the dialogue contributes very little. I won't spoil the movie much as most reviewers have already disclosed the critical plot-points. Logan, a loving and friendly widower, raises his son--as God would raise his own son--in his image to love nature and love animals (interestingly, the otherwise dreary Tom Laughlin film, "Born Losers" opens with similar wide-open-spaces, "Adam-in-nature" imagery). The opening shot of the camera coming down from heavenly clouds to a bucolic, edenic earth says it all. We're foreshadowed "wrath-of-God-unto-the-unrighteous" stuff here. The father-son relationship is conveyed via images rather than through dialogue. The latter serves to characterize, rather heavy-handedly, the heavies from the quietly burgeoning military-industrial complex (more on this below). The dad watches over his son, patiently and indulgently teaches him how drive a stick (try teaching someone sometime in _your_ car and note how aggravating, if not damaging to your gearbox, the process is!), and his bond with his dog is evident. The dog, Lassie-like, abides by one of Logan's words! So, this guy is even a friend to animals... The plot takes off when Logan and son go in for some overnight, father-son bonding-camping. Absolutely, there exist credibility gaps in the plot. Is Logan a bit denser that most of us? His IQ, reasoning process is never established. His heart, big as all Wyoming outdoors, is. He is a tender, trusting human being, perhaps one not given to cold rational thinking(unlike the calculating heavies), but one whose mind appears dedicated to raising his son in a bucolic, wholesome environment. Enter the US Army and its CYA thinking. This is an institution we have been bred to trust to _protects us_, like a loving, trusted father (get where this is going?) Two worldviews collide. Logan allows himself to believe what he wants to believe. He even trusts Dr. Holliford's (Martin Sheen) Army-led medical team, which eventually begins to sedate him. Only Logan's long-time friend, the family doctor, Dr. Caldwell, portrayed by long-time veteran, Richard Basehart, watches out for Logan. The conspiracy of silence expands as even the Health Department doctor, Dr. Spencer, gets co-opted to lie to Logan about his condition and his son's death. The slow disintegration of trust ends when Logan finds his son's corpse in the hospital morgue. A slow rage due to betrayal begins to simmer. Logan strikes back the only way he knows how. The careless killing of Spencer's cat foreshadows Logan's loss of love for animals (eventually men), a behavior learned from his new nemesis, the MI-Complex. Logan goes on a blind, rage-fueled destruction and killing spree. The MI Complex has nothing on him. Logan has quickly learned to kill arbitrarily, security guards, policemen, sentries--whomever stand in his way. Even innocent, caged animals die by his hand--the very same victims of the MI Complex. Logan, as Nietzsche warned, has become just like his enemy... It all comes to naught as we, and he, learn. There really was nothing to destroy. It's a _worldview_ Logan took on. He comes to understand that the MIC's nihilism has transformed him into a spiteful killing machine and spares a truck-drivers life. He no longer fires at anyone in the base. He waits to die a painful death. The man of nature (God?) is dead. His long-time friend left, Dr. Caldwell remains, grieving. Basehart's face says it all... Overall, I did not know whether the flaws in this film were due to a lack of rewrites in the script, or too many. Wish I could read it to compare to the film. Scott has an interesting directing style, but definitely not one that fits the Hollywood formula. The clever camera-work "edits" in the early father-son scenes mystified me. They brought too much attention to themselves and added little to the narrative. One reviewer complained about the lighting. I find that hard to believe--as the noir style and in one sequence Logan walking into the darkness as his character sinks into nihilism and rage adds so much to the narrative and character development. Even Lalo Schifrin's clichéd, corny, bucolic harmonica in the opening sheep-farm scenes invites us into Logan's, un-thinking, all-feeling, clichéd Americana, "one-with-nature-in-the-farm" world--one that will soon perish, destroyed by you know who... Be well.

moonspinner55 Scrappy, ultimately pointless scare-tactics drama with George C. Scott playing a rancher who, along with his son, is accidentally sprayed with toxic chemicals by the military while on a camp-out. Scott made his directorial debut here and does a fine job handling the actors, as well as himself. Unfortunately, Scott's continuity as a filmmaker is spotty; worse, his vision of this material is singularly unimaginative, with routine action and set-ups which don't involve the viewer. The anti-military undermining isn't so much provocative as it is half-baked, and the narrative of the film strays. Martin Sheen, Richard Basehart and Barnard Hughes are all worth-watching here, and Scott as always is a magnetic screen performer, but this 'message film' is awfully tepid. ** from ****

verbusen Well, everyone here who has submitted a review has given out all the spoilers for this film, which is why I stopped reading reviews here until I saw a movie. So by now you know all about the plot. I have not seen this one for awhile but I still remember this movie very well. The revenge Scott's character extracts is almost total and quite extensive which in my book makes this a great film to watch. It's not a movie I would watch with any women; they would hate it and probably go in another part of the house to watch something else. But for guys, this is one adrenalin pumped action flick that plays out like a true to life event. I'm a military type and I know it carries a heavy military bashing storyline, but hey I found it all being plausible and if that ever did happen I could see events transpiring the way they did in the film. If you like man vs society type films than this is your type of action film. Recommended.