The English Patient -- 1996 -- R

This won best picture in 1996 over Evita. Talk about a slow burning fuse. It took forever for anything interesting to happen in this film, despite all the war stuff, and people getting blown up occasionally. The beginning was intriguing enough: plane shot out of sky with two people in it; one survives all burned up. Sure, want to know who they are. The film moves through two different plots: one for the guy with the burned up face before his face got burned up in the past, and the other for the nurse who is caring for him in the present (1944). Anytime you feel like checking the runtime on a movie, there is a pacing issue in my opinion. However, this is also the type of film to ensure all loose ends are tied up and somehow it leaves you with a satisfied feeling when it's all over. 

Another love triangle for the main storyline, it involves an illicit affair and how to (or not to) handle it. This time, both lovers are all over each other at the expense of the husband. Personally, this is never a plot I can get behind just because I don't think it's right, no matter how much you push the "meant for each other" envelope. I believe the decisions and promises you've made outweigh any "meant for each other" feelings you think you feel in the future. If you stick to your decisions and don't let lust carry you away, you will find you've been with who you were meant for already. So, bottom line: slow film, big drama, good drama, nice conflict, good story, but just not fond of "adultery is right" films.

Alexander -- 2004 -- R

This extensive film covers essentially the rise and fall of Alexander the Great in a style that intercuts elements of a documentary with standard drama of dueling storylines. One storyline begins in Alexander's youth and follows him until he becomes king. The other starts at his first battle as king and follows him to his death.

With only a couple of minor hiccups at the beginning of the film, mostly due to the tri-fold skippage of the style from documentary told by one of Alexander's generals to the two other storylines, the film flows pretty well after the first half hour is over. I watched the director's cut which boasts a run time of nearly three hours. It comes top about 2 hours and 38 minutes without the credits.

Though it ran long, the film occasionally tried to do too much. It had multiple relationships for Alexander to go through including those with his mother, father, wife, male lover, generals, his army, and his people along with an ongoing inner conflict with himself. Tackling all of these relationships along with delivering a solid war movie caused the relationships to founder here and there as the movie progressed, which some taking off very well and then falling away as the movie went on.

What happened over and over again when a new relationship was introduced is a quick rundown of how the relationship works and some conflict inherent between that relationship and the rest of Alexander's life. Beyond this, the matter is dropped until needed and then there is relatively little development, just a little plot that uses what was established. In fact, a lot of the development is attempted through the documentary portions rather than viewing the character interaction. In my opinion, this hurts much of the character progression, but it does keep the film moving.

Overall, if you are into Greek history or historical or war dramas, it works well from the angle, but as a straight drama, I think it falls a little flat.

Lawrence of Arabia -- 1962 -- PG

This is the longest theatrical movie I know of topping off at 217 minutes (227 with the Overture, Entr'acte and Exit Music). The theatrical edition of Return of the King only runs 200 minutes (the extended edition run 250, making it the longest overall I know of). This movie was so long, there is an intermission scripted into the movie so people get a potty break at about 140 minutes into it.

NOTE: I did learn that The Ten Commandments clocks in at 220, so it is technically longer, but it doesn't have the music, so it could go either way depending on whether you want to count the music.

That aside, this movie is very well-paced. It flows easily from point to point and T.E. Lawrence's plight is well-conceived and believable. He is a man who came from the British army to Arabia and ends up uniting several warring Arabian tribes in an effort to place Arabia under their rules instead of Britain's. 

The only complaint I have is the unbelievably long (but picturesque) riding sequences. 30 minutes could have been cut from the final product if there weren't so many camels walking across the desert shots. There was a full 7 minutes devoted to a tribe leaving their village to go to war. It got real old real fast. 

Beyond this, however, it did earn a well-deserved best picture award in 1962, along with 6 others and proves to be overall a very good film.

Platoon -- 1986 -- R

The film that put Oliver Stone on the map follows a young Charlie Sheen as a wet behind the ears private during his tour in Vietnam. He moves from a boy of hope to a man of blood, unafraid to do whatever it takes to survive his harsh reality.

During this bit, we are introduced to a variety of different characters, each exemplifying a personality one can expect to find in the Nam world. The idiot lieutenant newbie; the battle-hardened sergeant offset by the understanding, reasonable sergeant; the captain who commands respect; and of course, the myriad of nameless, faceless "gooks" that litter the Vietnam landscape and kill everything that moves.

The characters were developed very well, however, and did force me to care about their lives and what's going on. It even demonstrated the horrors the military enacted by attacking (and killing) innocent Vietnamese and destroying everything in their path.

While pulling a lot of cliches into the mix, the film was very good and dramatic to watch. It contained a slew of solid suspenseful moments enhanced by the development of the story as well as a few well setup shocker moments. It had a satisfying ending and kept me fairly glued by the plot and pacing.

In the end, the film asserted that in this instance, they were not so much fighting against the enemy out there, but the enemy within. I'd say it was quote good.

Gone With The Wind -- 1939 -- G

Yes, I'll reveal the horrifying truth. This was the first time I've seen this movie from one end to the other. I'd seen bits and pieces before, but never all four hours of it.

For such a long movie, this one was very well paced. The scenes move very, very quickly from one point to another and never really let up or slow down. Scarlett is the clear lead here and she is very well developed along with the other main players. It is supposed to be bright and grand, and that it is throughout its tableaus and high speed tour through the Civil War.

The basic plot involves a spoiled brat by the name of Scarlett O'Hara who is obsessed with Ashley Wilkes, who she loses to his cousin, Melanie, in the first act. This thing between her, Ashley, and Melanie becomes an ongoing "thing" throughout the film as she makes trying to get Ashley her goal in everything she does. Rhett Butler meets her early on, and though not being a marrying man, he finds himself attracted to her, but no matter what he does, he can't get her past this Ashley obsession. This leads Scarlett to her ultimate downfall and loss of everything.

My main complaint is her ending. She loses everything, and we are thinking, "go after him!" What is her response? I'll do it tomorrow, because tomorrow is another day. There's a procrastinator if I ever saw one.

So the film is clearly superior is many ways, but that ending just sucked. She learned where her heart was, and failed to pursue it settling for nothing. But overall, it is a head and shoulders better than a lot of things you could put on.

Hellcats of the Navy -- 1957

So I've never sat down and watched a war movie before, particularly a submarine one. The reason I watched this one is because I realized I'd never seen a Ronald Reagan movie, and this one happens to be the only one to have both Ronald and Nancy Reagan (as Nancy Davis) in it twenty three years before they took over the White House as President and First Lady.

The plot is rather simple. It involves a submarine captain (Ronald Reagan) and his first officer as they navigate their submarine through the waters around Japan during World War II. Early on, the captain is forced to abandon one of his men when a Japanese destroyer starts breathing down their necks and the first officer believes he did it because that person was going out with the captain's ex-girl. The captain insisted that what he did was in the best interest of the ship and crew, but it serves to create that line of tension between them. There's some development as the captain reunites with his girl (Nancy Davis) and he reiterates the reason he didn't want a relationship with her before the war was because he wanted a "wife and children" not a "widow and orphans." Seems reasonable. After a daring move, the captain's sub is blown up and he and his first officer are given another sub to take on a final big mission. They go through it, and we get our inevitable irony before a big happy ending.

While the film sports decent characters and an interesting enough situation, it didn't really have much in the way of outward plot tension. The subject is war, and though we occasionally had the Japanese closing in, we never really felt it. I'm not sure if it was to detach from them, but we only had one image of any Japanese soldiers; the rest was implied or just boats. It never served to really grip us or drag us into the story. It just plodded along and everything continued to work out just fine.

Maybe that was the point. In the end, it felt like a bit of war propaganda even though World War II had been over for 12 years at that point. Maybe it was assurance that we did the right thing. It opened up with an "admiral" voice over explaining the situation and the heroes involved, and closed with titles congratulating those involved. It was actually a bit corny.

So I don't know how realistic a depiction of war it really was. I mean, we did lose a sub as well as some of the men on board, but we never got the emotional impact of that loss, since we never saw any reactions to this other than from Reagan who simply described what happened. But for a film about a conflict, the conflict was limited, and the emotional impact was stifled. I thnk it could have been a lot better if they allowed that part of the story to open up, but maybe that would have been too much for the public to handle at the time. Perhaps so close to the end of the War, people still wanted to feel good about it and minimize their own emotional scars.

I can grant this for the time being, but it destroys any staying power this film ever hoped to have as fifty years after its release, its only claim to fame is the reason I watched it. As a basic film, it only stands as mediocre; not bad, mind you, just mediocre.