My All-Time Favorite Movies

This refers to the original version, not "Redux" with those extra scenes, which drag the film down and should've been relegated to the 'deleted scenes' option of the DVD.

Was Col. Kurtz (Brando) really insane or actually an unrecognized genius? General Corman informs Willard: "He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct. And he is still in the field commanding troops." And, yet, Kurtz was accomplishing what the US military couldn't or wouldn't do because of political complications and niceties. I bring this up because, as I've aged, I've come to see that I'm Col. Kurtz in some ways -- operating "out there" beyond the parameters and restrictions typically linked to my work.

The meaning of the story is obvious: The trip up the river led by Capt. Willard (Sheen) exposes him to two extreme viewpoints of war represented by the two colonels he encounters on his long journey, both of whose names start with 'K,' which is no accident. Col. Kilgore (Duvall) is a romantic who embraces war as a lifestyle and even feeds off it, i.e. glorifies it. The fact that he's a romantic can be observed in the air-raid on the village where he literally plays Wagner as a prologue. He feeds off the war to the extent that he "loves the smell of napalm in the morning." War is just another day to him so why not go surfing? Since he lives off of the war there's no way it can kill him or even give him a scratch. Kilgore naturally has the support of the top brass because he's part of the system and plays the game of war. Col. Kurtz (Brando), by contrast, sees through this hypocrisy. He realizes that being in a state of war is humanity gone mad. It's horror itself and therefore must be ended through the quickest means possible at whatever cost. He refuses to play the game of war as he expertly takes out double agents, etc. Of course the brass can't have this so they put out a hit on Kurtz via Willard. The existential Kurtz becomes increasingly disillusioned after jumping ship from the system and now has no sanctuary. Death is the only way out.

The story takes place suring the French and Indian War. Highlights include:

• The great casting: Daniel Day-Lewis as Nathaniel, Madeleine Stowe as Cora Munro, Wes Studi as Magua -- heck, everyone's fabulous.

• The score by Randy Edelman is one of the greatest in motion picture history. It's as good or better than any you can think of, including "Conan the Barbarian," "Where Eagles Dare," "The Last Valley," "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," etc.

• The plot is simple and the film runs less than two hours, but there's a definite epic scope to the picture. More than that, the ambiance of the film is equal parts historic, realistic, pure, brutal, beautiful and reverent.

• This film contains one of the greatest non-soap operatic love stories in motion picture history. During the "Look of Love" sequence Nathaniel stops and turns to gaze at Cora. Cora looks up and asks, "What are you looking at, Sir?" Nathaniel simply responds, "I'm looking at you, Miss." Cora finally looks back at him; first hesitatingly, then fully, then finally with a knowing smile. They just look at each other and Nathaniel returns the smile, turns and departs. Without a word, we KNOW that Nathaniel and Cora are in profound awe and love of each other. Later, when they finally passionately embrace it's potent and moving. This simple scene blows away any overt love-making scene you can think of.

• The primal Magua is a great villain, compelled to hatred, bitterness and revenge for numerous understandable reasons.

• Magua's two pow-wow interludes with the French general (Patrice Chereau) are imaginative, surreal and powerful.

• The French and Indian War skirmishes and Fort battles are realistic, compelling and brutal.

• Cora's sister Alice (Jodhi May) is only 15 years old and the fierceness of the frontier is simply too overwhelming for her. She almost commits suicide but Uncas (Eric Schweig) saves her.

• After Nathaniel and his Indian stepfather and stepbrother barely escape the clutches of Magua by jumping from a waterfall there's an unexpected and powerful interlude featuring the magnificent Clannad song "I Will Find You." Unfortunately this song was inexplicably cut from the director's edition. Apparently Mann felt it was anachronistic; it's not, it perfectly fits the feel and era of the picture.

• Although Major Heyward comes off as a ultra pro-British dork, he ultimately proves his bravery and noble character.

• One of the most memorable scenes is Alice's ultimate response to the prospect of living the rest of her life as Magua's slave-squaw. I cannot describe how magnificent and moving this episode is!

• The picture was filmed in glorious Chimney Rock Park in Western North Carolina. One reviewer fittingly called the film an "Eastern."

• The entire 15-20 minute climax, which includes Chingachgook's final fight with Magua, is compelling, imaginative and flawless. Chingachgook is played by Russell Means, by the way.

I don't think this popular film requires much commentary since virtually everyone has seen it; it's the ultimate adventure film -- exciting and fun, even quasi-believeable, unlike the more ridiculous sequels. It has an interesting story, just enough character depth and even some fascinating insights. On top of this is the string of action sequences second-to-none: The jungle treasure sequence, the Nepal bar brouhaha, the streets of Cairo chase, the Well of Souls in Tanis sequence, the plane episode, the truck sequence, and, of course, the thrilling and horrifying opening of the sacred Ark.

"Runaway Train" is such a powerful experience because it's much more than just a mindless action flick, as the title would suggest; the thrilling events are actually a stage for a fascinating study of the human condition. Manny is a hardened convict who's "at war with the world and everyone in it." When called an animal he replies, "No, worse -- human!"

This is a man who wants one thing, freedom, but he knows that he's too far gone to make it in conventional society. He shares a parable with his dumb partner, made up on the spot, about having a menial job and submitting to the boss even though you might want to rip his throat out. This is the key to making it in society -- submitting to authority and resisting the rage within; and then getting your check on payday and enjoying the fruits thereof. Manny wishes he could do this, but knows he can't. So what hope is there for him in modern society? If he can't do that then why's he escaping prison? In other words, Manny knows there's no hope for him, even if his escape is successful. To him, freedom can only come one way. I don't believe this, but I understand why he believes it.

Mel Gibson's 1984 version is the most accurate, but Brando's is the most epic, as well as the most compelling despite its 3-hour length. The 1935 black & white version is disappointing. It's a fine film for its day, but it'll likely seem dated and fabricated to modern viewers.

Nitpickers grumble about historical inaccuracies, but the entire gist of the story is accurate: Fletcher was born to an aristocratic family who were losing their wealth (why do you think he takes the mission?); two cheeses did come up missing and Bligh was the culprit who unjustly blamed others; they did fail to sail around Cape Horn after only going 85 miles in a month; they did spend five months on Tahiti and Fletcher did fall for Maimiti; after the mutiny Fletcher and his crew did end up stranded on Pitcairn where they set The Bounty ablaze; and Christian did die on the island, although in real life he lived for another three and a half years before being killed by one of the Tahitian men in a conflict that broke out.

I've heard some grumbling about this Western's PC-influenced negative portrayal of whites in general and also its supposed romanticized portrayal of Indians as super-virtuous. Hence, before viewing the film the last time I watched it I was braced for the worst. After seeing it, I must say that most of these grumblings are utter hogwash. No kidding. The film rings of authenticity and the characters are anything but one-dimensional. See my review for evidence from the film itself.

As to the accuracy of the story, the fact is that many whites have "gone injun" and many Natives have assimilated with whites. The story explores the possibility of what would happen if a white man dropped all prejudices and tried to get along with some Sioux neighbors; and what if this small band of Natives was open and curious enough to accept him? Is it unlikely that this band would have an available decent-looking white woman amongst them that Dunbar could fall in love with? Is there a bit of romanticization? Yes, but it is a Hollywood movie, after all. Regardless, it's presented in a believable, compelling and captivating way.

A new teacher at a stuffy prep school in 1959 (Robin Williams) inspires his students to capitalize on their natural talents and develop a passion for life because they only have one shot and in 60 years or so they'll all be worm-food. Each boy starts to act on Keating's dynamic ideas with explosive consequences -- both good and bad.

This is an outstanding drama that'll inspire you, especially if you've fallen into a life-stifling, growth-stultifying rut of drudgery.

Based on the 1964 civil rights workers' murders in Neshoba County, Mississippi, the film details the investigation of two FBI agents who travel down there to solve the case. One of them (Willem Dafoe) does everything by the book while the other (Gene Hackman) mingles with the people to sniff out the culprits. Their vastly different approaches create tension, but they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

This is just a great film about the injustice of one group of smallminded people wanting to suppress another and those who seek a more perfect world.

Hackman stands out as the main protagonist, but Dafoe is good as well. Brad Dourif and Frances McDormand play the couple that the Hackman character zeroes in on. He knows the husband is guilty and his wife is the weak link because (1.) she's also oppressed and unhappy, (2.) she sees the injustice going on and doesn't like it, but knows there's realistically little she can do to stop it without incurring the wrath of her husband & his colleagues, and (3.) she enjoys the agent's flirtations and he senses it.

The opening with the breath-taking Alps and Ron Goodwin's incredible score is one of the greatest cinematic openings in history. From there you get intrigue, thrilling action scenes, a magnificent castle, Richard Burton at his charismatic best, two beautiful women (Mary Ure and Ingrid Pitt), surprising plot twists, cable cars, a suspenseful escape and a don't-see-it-coming ending, Not to mention Clint Eastwood. These positives are just off the top of my head.

Speaking of Eastwood, he plays a taciturn American lieutenant, second fiddle to Richard Burton, the British leader of the operation. Believe it or not, Burton's charisma is so out of the ball park that Eastwood pales by comparison. Of course, this has a lot to do with the way their roles were written, but you still have to give Burton credit for blowing Eastwood -- who's no slouch -- out of the water.

Despite his obvious flaws, McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is the protagonist of the story. Although he's impulsive and has a weakness for the female gender, which got him into prison in the first place, he has a spirit of freedom and life. His problem is that he needs to learn a bit of wisdom; then he can walk in his freedom without causing unnecessary harm to himself and others.

Nurse Ratched, on the other hand, represents legal-ism, which is an authoritarian spirit obsessed with laws or rules. This is clearly seen in the World Series sequence: Even though McMurphy gets the final vote he needs for his ward to watch the Series Ratched refuses to allow it on a technicality. When McMurphy then PRETENDS to watch the game and works the guys up into a state of euphoria, Ratched reacts with sourpuss disapproval. That's because legalism is the opposite of the spirit of freedom, life and joy. Legalism is all about putting on appearances and enforcing the LETTER of the law (or rule). The problem with this is that "appearances" are not about reality and, worse, "the letter kills."

Despite his folly and mistakes, McMurphy does more good for the guys in his ward than Ratched and the institution could do in a decade. How so? Not only because he has a spirit of freedom and life, but because he loves deeply, yet only those who deserve it – the humble – not arrogant abusers.

"The Mothman Prophecies" is not a monster movie or a slasher horror flick; it's a creepy supernatural/mystery story with loads of mood & atmosphere. Every element of this motion picture skillfully works -- acting, story, editing, score, cinematography, locations, effects, etc.

Sensitive viewers will note an undeniable reverent, beautiful quality to the film. The ending is strangely touching.

One critic claimed that the mysteries presented in the story are not supposed to be figured out and, indeed, CANNOT be figured out. This is completely untrue. One must understand that this film is brilliantly intricate. Many questions are raised with varying possible answers. Don't think for a second that there are no real answers in this film; they're all there, but you may have to watch it a few times to discover them. I appreciate the fact that the director and writer refused to spell everything out for the viewer, even allowing room for complete misinterpretation. If the viewer wants answers s/he must have "ears to hear" and be willing to work for them.

My initial interpretation was that the mothmen are good spiritual beings that are trying to help humankind by predicting great calamities but can be easily misunderstood because they are so far superior to humans. In a nutshell my interpretation was that the "mothman" brought Gere to Point Pleasant to meet and save the future replacement for his dead wife, who died due to a pre-existing condition that only the mothman knew about. This explanation obviously suggests that the "mothmen" are good in nature.

I've come to see that this interpretation is false; a brilliantly implemented red herring.

Speaking of the ending (***SPOILER***), the tale potently ends with the two protagonists in shock sitting in an ambulance just glad to be alive.

This superhero-team film is long, dark, mature, dialogue-driven and convoluted, but the strong characters and originality win the day -- no moronic "blockbuster" trash here. Not to mention Silk Spectre II and her mother are extremely easy on the eyes. As far as superhero flicks go, there's really nothing else like "Watchmen;" it's even more atypical than the X-Men. "Watchmen" is like the "Apocalypse Now" of superhero films!

A Maryland town plagued by a series of apparent suicides. The people of the town's prominent church attribute the problem to witchcraft and zero-in on the Wiccan son of a witch who literally burned to death years earlier (written off as an "accident"). A Christian girl, Lindsay, takes compassion on the Wiccan dude, Aiden, and tries to understand him and what's really going on. Meanwhile people keep dying. Is this a curse of retribution released by the Wiccans? A small group of the Christians led by Dylan, the pastor's son and Lindsay's boyfriend, become desperate enough to pull out the guns.

If you're interested in seeing another typical slasher flick "From Within" probably won't appeal to you, but if you're in the mood for a serious chiller with an original concept and truly thought-provoking material this is the film to see, particularly if you're interested in belief systems, psychology, spirituality and questions of morality.

Lindsay sees her church's error and hypocrisy even while she experiences its positive aspects. She reaches out in compassion to the Wiccan dude, a purely loving gesture, but ultimately realizes that witchcraft is what released the death-curse. She's stuck between evil & error on both sides, what can she do?

"One of the films highlights is the song played during the opening credits "This Voice" by Ane Brun. The song is outstanding, to say the least. It's from her 2006 album A TEMPORARY DIVE. You can hear the whole song on youtube.

"From Within" is nothing less than amazing. It's original, absorbing, fascinating and provocative; perhaps a masterpiece. But it's a horror film in the truest sense. Although it reveals a lot of truth about the human condition -- both good and bad -- it's not ultimately life-affirming. This is horror.

Do I even need to comment on this iconic film? It's one of the best creature features ever made; the creature just so happens to be a Great White shark!

This is the greatest Christian-themed sword & sandal flick and a great epic period.

This is the greatest sword & sandal film of all time IMHO. Brad Pitt is outstanding as Achilles. If you're into sword & sandal epics, "Troy" is a must. The story captivates you right from the get-go and never lets up the entire 2.5 hour running time. Beyond this, "Troy" extravagantly visualizes the Trojan war for the viewer, something I never did until seeing this mind-blowing, outstanding piece of cinema.

Neither the Greeks nor the Trojans are painted as the 'good guys' or 'bad guys.' They're just people at war, and in war there's no real glory, as Hector points out,... and it never ends, as Achilles states. An additional point of the film is that living in a state of war is a JOYLESS existence. And both Bana and Pitt get this across well.

The story involves a Coney Island gang that gets wrongly accused of murder and must make it back home from the Bronx, fighting enemy gangs and police all the way.

The 'feel' of the movie is part surreal, part realistic and wholly captivating! "The Warriors" is just a great flick full of memorable scenes and lines. I love the ending where the remaining Warriors walk down the Coney Island beach while the DJ offers them a tribute song -- "Survival In the City" by Joe Walsh & The Eagles.

I also like the fact that the Warriors are a racially mixed gang -- a group of lost souls in the urban jungle, banded together perhaps for no other reason except the obvious fact that they're from the same urban cesspool and have a need to belong.

I stated that the movie is part realistic, but only in the sense that it never becomes campy; the creators and cast take it all quite serious. Other than that, the flick showcases a mesmerizing fantastical New York City, that could never be mistaken for reality.

"The Wild Angels" is a cult flick in the truest sense -- unique and brilliant. Yes, some of The Angel's behavior is incredibly reprehensible and, yes, the preacher in the story was right when he stated, "Woe to those who say evil is good and good is evil." Still, the picture successfully captures the utterly outcast and outlaw nature of The Angel's bike gang. They're like a small, totally lost tribe living on the periphery of American society. In a way, one can't help but pity the poor bastages.

The final 55 minutes of the film involve The Loser's death, funeral and burial (Bruce Dern). If you're psyched up to see an action film you're going to be disappointed because "The Wild Angels" boldly sneers at such film conventions. The story is essentially about death and the nature of bereavement. It potently shows how the various gang members deal with their grief: They generally deny it and attempt to lose themselves in drinking, drugs, revelry and criminal & perverse conduct. The leader (Peter Fonda) can't shake his mournful spirit of loss; he's not even sure if he loves his "old lady" anymore. When everyone else scatters because "the heat" arrives, he stays -- risking impending capture -- to bury his fallen comrade. One gets the impression he's digging his own grave because, as he told his girlfriend, he's got "no where to go."

The original title of "The Wild Angels" was much better and more fitting: "All the Fallen Angels."

"The Motion Picture" was one of the most expensive films of its time, but it did well at the box office and thus made a decent profit -- a testimony to how hungry the public was for Star Trek after ten long years (since the cancellation of the original TV series in '69). In fact, aside from "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home," ST:TMP is still the most profitable of all the Star Trek feature films featuring the original cast (Making FOUR TIMES its expense worldwide); it therefore can't very well be the cinematic turd that many critics claim. Also, consider the fact that ST:TMP made more at the box office than the acclaimed films "Alien" and "Apocalypse Now," both released the same year (1979).

Although "The Motion Picture" is a "Grade A" picture as far as epic, awe-inspiring pieces of cinematic art go, I understand why some would grade it lower. In such cases I suggest making the necessary psychological adjustments and watching it again as it is more along the lines of "The Cage" (#1) than "The Doomsday Machine" (#35). If this doesn't work, stick with more lightweight fare like "Zathura" or even "Star Wars" (giggle). Just joking.

Interestingly, "The Motion Picture" is the sole Star Trek film that aspires to and attains a level of cinematic awe along the lines of "2001: A Space Odyssey." Actually, "The Motion Picture" is LEAGUES better IMHO. "2001" lacks characters whom the viewer cares about; it's also cold and overly artsy, with way too many unnecessarily boring sequences (but, don't get me wrong, if "2001" trips your trigger, that's great). "The Motion Picture," by contrast, has heart. Not to mention an interesting story that delves into the deepest of all universal questions.

Say what you will, but "The Motion Picture" towers alone, utterly unique in the feature film series -- a profoundly spiritual TRIUMPH.

"The Search for Spock" is a great Star Trek picture embellished by the welcome return of Trek's quirky brand of humor. The story expertly meshes comedic touches with dead-serious tragedy. It's also thoroughly enjoyable and compelling to see Kirk & crew in the wry and unexpected role of Starfleet rebels, risking everything to honor their fallen comrade. Another highlight is the return of Klingons as major villains, with upgraded make-up no less.

The only problem with this Trek installment is revealed in the title -- there's no Spock, at least as we know him, but the film does a fabulous job of instilling a sense of the Vulcan's lingering presence. The story climaxes with the powerful image of Spock's mates warmly gathering together. This scene is worth the wait where a simple raised eyebrow fills the viewer with incredible warmth and joy (not to mention the shedding of a few tears).

Also, I gotta hand it to the creators for coming up with an inspired and (seemingly) credible way of resurrecting Spock; the Genesis Project was, by happenstance, the perfect catalyst.

Lastly, "Star Trek III" is inexplicably condemned by fundamentalist trekkers as a failure or, at best, mediocre.

They're wrong.

Everything magically comes together on this fourth film outing to give us a tale every bit as good as the best TV episodes. In fact, it's BETTER because it's a feature film and looks so good (unlike the cheap sets of the original three-year TV run). I gotta hand it to Leonard Nimoy for coming up with such an intriguingly bizarre and original tale involving humpback whales that communicate with aliens. If I didn't know better I'd think he was influenced by some trippy foreign substance. Needless to say, the film's great fun and grand entertainment of the highest order -- even if you're not a Trek fan. In other words, this is the most accessible of the feature films for non-Trekkers.

Without a doubt, the best of the film series (at least up to the reboots) -- the most entertaining, the most popular and the most profitable.

Generations" is ambitious, high-concept sci-fi of the highest order; it leaves the viewer with many interesting questions to ponder long afterwards. Although the Nexus has been criticized as a mere gimmick to get Kirk and Picard together, I find the concept utterly fascinating: No matter how much we want it, an illusory paradise is just that -- an illusion. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of the Nexus and its implementation into the storyline is nothing short of brilliant. Who created the Nexus? Why, who else but the Talosians, the 'antagonists' of Trek's very first episode, "The Cage"! Think about it.

Besides this, there are an incredible number of highlights: The usual Trek humor, Data's amusing experiences with the emotion chip, Malcolm McDowell's outstanding performance as the mad Soran, Soran's believable obsession and justifications, B'Etor & Lursa and their "wild bunch" Klingons, the startling obliteration of them and their vessel, the thrilling crash-landing of the Enterprise-D, the meeting of Kirk and Picard in the Nexus, the final showdown with Soran and Kirk's death (disregarding the lame "Oh my"). Needless to say, "Generations" does far more than offer mere juvenile space battles.

Lastly, if you think this film is full of plot holes, see my review.

With the lukewarm performance of the last Next Generation film — 2002’s Star Trek: Nemesis — producer & director J.J. Abrams knew he had to do more than simply go back to the Academy years of the original characters. By the time this film was conceived, Star Trek was over four decades old and had accumulated more than 40 years of lore. As such, the universe of Star Trek was bogged down by its own elaborate tenets and had become somewhat sterile and predictable. Personally, I felt Nemesis was a solid installment in the series, but I agree that Star Trek was too mired in orthodoxy for its own good. Something needed to shake things up and that’s exactly what Abrams and his writers did with this film — not only do they place young Kirk & crew in an alternate timeline, they throw in drastic changes, like destroying Vulcan and allowing only 10,000 survivors. This, of course, offended fundamentalist trekkers to no end. They, in essence, responded the same way Charleton Heston did at the end of the renowned Planet of the Apes: “You Maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you! God damn you all to hell!” Although I initially felt blowing up Vulcan was a bit much, Abrams’ changes accomplished his goal — they shook everything up, big time. More importantly, the film is entertaining and was massively poplular at the box office. It was a huge gamble, but it paid off.

Despite this, there were some things that held me back from fully embracing this installment the first couple of times I saw it, even though I was entertained. For one, like everyone else I had to get used to the new cast in the roles of the original characters, which I did by the time 2013’s Into Darkness rolled around. Secondly, the story is somewhat convoluted and it wasn’t until the third time I watched it that I fully grasped the major plot points (aduh). But this really isn’t a bad thing. It’s like certain songs you hear for the first time and you don’t wholly appreciate them, yet something keeps you coming back and they become lasting favorites.

What really turned me off was the sequence where Kirk is literally ejected from the Enterprise by Spock, lands on the closest planet to Vulcan and is randomly chased by an alien predator, and then another one — much bigger — which leads him to seek shelter in a random cave where —voilà— he meets old Spock! This series of coincidences was just too much for my logical brain to accept and it took me right out of the story. But a Trekspert explained to me that destiny is an important theme in the film. Although it’s an alternate reality, Kirk and Spock are DESTINED to hook up and become comrades and best friends. As such, events work in their favor to bring this about. I was able to see this on my third viewing, not to mention the fascinating irony of young Spock rejecting Kirk and old Spock saving him.

Bottom line: Star Trek is entertaining on so many levels. It has science-fiction, drama, comedy, romance, action and horror, not to mention the labyrinthian plot, and yet it all somehow gels together into a cohesive, entertaining whole and has re-watch appeal. Lastly, it’s just great seeing the original crew back in action, albeit younger versions of themselves, and with their original uniforms. Star Trek successfully introduces the original characters to a whole new generation and does it expertly. What more could you ask for?

Abrams and his writing team had the monumental task of following up a tremendously successful film. They had to build on the predecessor while attracting new fans. As such, the movie had to stand on its own without relying too much on the 2009 film. Well, they succeeded in spades! As great as Star Trek (the movie) was as a reboot of the series and an introduction of a new cast playing the original characters in their younger days, I like Into Darkness even more.

Being made by the same creative team that produced Star Trek it has the same feel, except that the viewer is now used to the new cast (assuming they’ve seen the first film). These actors ARE the characters and, without exception, they own their roles. Plus the introductions are out of the way so we’re freed-up to enjoy a whole new story set on the solid foundation already set. Like the previous film, Into Darkness expertly meshes elements of numerous genres into a cohesive whole. It’s a sci-fi space adventure with doses of drama, action, suspense, war and romance. In a sense, it tries to be all things to all people and somehow miraculously succeeds. Whatever you’re in the mood for, it’s here.

The idea of introducing a younger Khan at a much earlier date than in “Space Seed” (#24) was brilliant. Not only do we get Khan as the antagonist, we also get Klingons and a rogue Starfleet officer to boot. Furthermore, the continuity with the Original Series and films is great. With the presence of Khan there are obvious parallels to Star Trek II, but in my humble opinion it’s leagues better. It just has more drive and pizzazz, not to mention a more interesting story. With the phenomenal success of Abrams’ two films — and I don’t just mean financially, but all-around success, including the monumental task of getting young actors to play characters that the public’s known for almost half a century — we can look forward to many more adventures of the original crew, the first and best version of Star Trek.

Released in 1999 "Ride with the Devil" is a Civil War tale focusing on Southern guerrilla fighters known as Bushwhackers, mostly young men who stage daring raids on Union forces and communities along the Missouri/Kansas border. The story includes Quantrill's infamous 1963 raid on Lawrence, Kansas, which he burned & pillaged and murdered over 150 unarmed men, women and children.

The story shines the spotlight on the son of a German immigrant (Tobey Maguire aka Spider-man), a beautiful woman (Jewel) and an ex-slave (Jeffrey Wright), all of whom take up the Southern cause. I enjoyed how Tobey and Wright slowly develop a close friendship, as well as Wright's growing sense of freedom as the story progresses. Jewel makes an impressive acting debut and should do more films, she's a natural.

"Ride with the Devil" is the perfect antidote to "blockbuster" drivel. It's totally realistic and takes its time so you get to know the characters and FEEL their experiences. For instance, what's it like spending the entire Winter in a dugout hut in the woods with three other guys and the only highlight is some cute blond stopping by to drop off food? What's it like when you have no other recourse but to saw a buddy's arm off? What's it like when a blood-thirsty "comrade" tries to kill you during battle? What do you do when you run into him two years later and you're not sure what his intentions are?

"Ride with the Devil" is reminiscent in quality & style of films like "Cold Mountain," "Pharoah's Army" and "The Long Riders." If you appreciate those films you'll enjoy "Ride." It's leagues better than the generally aloof and soporific "Gettysburg." It's a class 'A' picture which brings to life Quantrill's raid on Lawrence, Kansas, including what leads up to it and what follows -- how can you go wrong?