Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews19
Ajjam1967's rating
Morgan and Quentin, brothers separated after an attack by Cheyenne, where their parents where killed and Morgan was abducted, as was their sister.
Years later, the brothers reunite and go on a quest to find their sister, whereabouts still unknown.
Morgan (Russell) largely maintains the Cheyenne ways that he was raised with, as opposed to Quentin (Matheson), who was the more typical 19th century white American.
Morgan's Cheyenne knowledge and skills were regularly utilised in the episodes, taking this kind of TV show a significant step away from virtually all that had preceded it. So in a sense, it was groundbreaking.
The premise seemed sound and the leads, both still relatively young, seemed to work well together. They were engaging and both would have been fairly familiar faces at the time, with Russell still familiar from childhood and other mostly Disney roles, and Matheson from Magnum Force and appearances in Bonanza.
However, it was disappointing to learn that the show would not reappear after the first season ended.
Was it cancelled too soon? I know now of low US ratings, and also with hindsight, I could see how it may have been difficult to maintain this kind of show long-term, with episodes becoming 'samey'. And if you think of similarities to this and "The Searchers" movie, how long could it go on for?
But I still wonder if it could have lasted a bit longer and maybe we could have got a look at this long-lost sister in one or more episodes, and maybe a proper conclusion that the cancellation did not allow.
You could always sense that Kurt Russell had the proper X factor of a film star to make it after what must have been a disappointing cancellation at the time.
As for Matheson, I have because of this cancellation, paid attention to his subsequent roles, and kind of rooted for him because of what happened with this one. He has managed to flit between co-starring roles in movies like Animal House and Fletch, with major and minor roles on the small screen, where he seems to have found his greatest success. John Hoynes in The West Wing may well be his most famous role, although I also liked his turn in Burn Notice.
I like to think that Kurt Russell and Tim Matheson still keep in touch, but who knows. I'm mostly glad that they both went on to bigger and better things and are still around at the time of writing.
Years later, the brothers reunite and go on a quest to find their sister, whereabouts still unknown.
Morgan (Russell) largely maintains the Cheyenne ways that he was raised with, as opposed to Quentin (Matheson), who was the more typical 19th century white American.
Morgan's Cheyenne knowledge and skills were regularly utilised in the episodes, taking this kind of TV show a significant step away from virtually all that had preceded it. So in a sense, it was groundbreaking.
The premise seemed sound and the leads, both still relatively young, seemed to work well together. They were engaging and both would have been fairly familiar faces at the time, with Russell still familiar from childhood and other mostly Disney roles, and Matheson from Magnum Force and appearances in Bonanza.
However, it was disappointing to learn that the show would not reappear after the first season ended.
Was it cancelled too soon? I know now of low US ratings, and also with hindsight, I could see how it may have been difficult to maintain this kind of show long-term, with episodes becoming 'samey'. And if you think of similarities to this and "The Searchers" movie, how long could it go on for?
But I still wonder if it could have lasted a bit longer and maybe we could have got a look at this long-lost sister in one or more episodes, and maybe a proper conclusion that the cancellation did not allow.
You could always sense that Kurt Russell had the proper X factor of a film star to make it after what must have been a disappointing cancellation at the time.
As for Matheson, I have because of this cancellation, paid attention to his subsequent roles, and kind of rooted for him because of what happened with this one. He has managed to flit between co-starring roles in movies like Animal House and Fletch, with major and minor roles on the small screen, where he seems to have found his greatest success. John Hoynes in The West Wing may well be his most famous role, although I also liked his turn in Burn Notice.
I like to think that Kurt Russell and Tim Matheson still keep in touch, but who knows. I'm mostly glad that they both went on to bigger and better things and are still around at the time of writing.
The premise of allied pilots and bomber crews being shot down and captured and their largely intact planes being turned on the allies, seems to be a good premise for at least a half decent WWII movie, but sadly this movie is what transpired instead. That is the major takeaway from this movie; the disappointment that it could and should have been sooo much better, despite what appears to have been a low budget venture.
OK, so it's low budget with no notable names in the cast (the lead does have a passing resemblance to Adam Levine from Maroon 5, but that's as noteworthy as the cast gets), so I wasn't expecting a blockbuster. But it started out OK and with some decent flying scenes. That said, I had some immediate observations.
This was German occupied France in 1944. The aircraft we start with were a single US bomber and two fighter escorts (P51s I think). This seemed strange, as you would have still expected a larger force, but budgets are budgets so this was as good as it was going to get, and this was plausible if unlikely.
The US planes are approached by a Spitfire and Hurricane. That in itself also seems strange as these aircraft tended to have different roles; Hurricanes would attack bombers and Spitfires would attack fighters, so it would be odd for them to pair up. But of course the scenario here is that they are trojan horse aircraft flown by Germans, who probably had slim pickings. A battle occurs and suffice to say the Germans are prized with a more or less intact US Bomber.
This is where things start to unravel in terms of quality. The bomber crew are kept prisoner whilst the remaining US fighter pilot is being searched for with a 'no survivors order' to the search party. As well as the bomber crew being held prisoner, there are two black GIs whose supply vehicle was targeted for aircraft parts, and a female resistance member, who hasn't been shot or seriously tortured, nor is she in the hands of the Gestapo. It's all bizarrely inconsistent, in terms of who is to be killed and who is to remain a prisoner and it is therefore an unsurprising if terrible plot device for later.
It also transpires that these particular Germans have a bomb capable of destroying London, despite that not being in any way historically accurate. And that is what they want the US bomber for. Naturally this complicates things for our prisoners and the pilot on the run, as well as destroys any pretence that this movie has any significant truth to its premise, beyond the covert use of captured WWII aircraft.
Naturally, there is further conflict, which I will not spoil too much, but I have to say that it gets very silly at times.
The ham with relish on top describes how the Germans in particular end up; as caricatures and as almost cartoonishly evil bad guys. Shootouts get truly silly.
Aircraft scenes also become long-winded and overblown.
This film clocks in at 129 mins but should have been more like 105 mins. For no good reason, the conflict scenes are drawn out by actors full of ham and relish and by a director who either allowed it or actively encouraged it. The sense I have is that this was someone's film project rather than a serious commercial venture. No one believed enough in this project to try and sell it with any realism and instead opted for hamming it up with relish on top.
Clearly there was no budget for some things, but other things seem to have been paid for. Aside from a ludicrous sequence where a fighter and a bomber have a dogfight, as if both aircraft could realistically do that, the aircraft scenes are largely believable and quite well done. But they were still longer than necessary.
German ground vehicles seemed to be realistic, but they were also pristine, as if they had just been delivered in a crate, fresh off the production line, and therefore without having had any use before, whatsoever. My best guess there is that well-kept museum pieces may have been used, and were a little too well kept to be realistic in the circumstances of the movie, but couldn't be 'dirtied' or made to look used by the production, as part of the deal made to use them. As I say, best guess.
I struggle to see why you would make a movie like this, unless it was more about the making of it than the presentation of it. It absolutely seems to have been someone's project that was allowed to become bloated, when being more concise would have made a better, shorter, more cost effective movie.
The premise too was a fail because it went for historically inaccurate spectacle, when a more realistic plot (e.g. Bombing Churchill or Eisenhower or King George at a specific time and place, where one or more was scheduled to be), may have worked better. The throwing-in of a super weapon that could destroy London was a bad mistake that just took the whole movie down a road of nonsense from which it does not recover.
All that said, somehow this movie remains just about watchable. If I can get through it to the end, then so can you. Well, at least some of you.
I struggled with the rating but settled on 5 stars. I thought it was slightly closer to a 5 than a 4. Either a 4.5 or a 9/20 would have felt about right.
OK, so it's low budget with no notable names in the cast (the lead does have a passing resemblance to Adam Levine from Maroon 5, but that's as noteworthy as the cast gets), so I wasn't expecting a blockbuster. But it started out OK and with some decent flying scenes. That said, I had some immediate observations.
This was German occupied France in 1944. The aircraft we start with were a single US bomber and two fighter escorts (P51s I think). This seemed strange, as you would have still expected a larger force, but budgets are budgets so this was as good as it was going to get, and this was plausible if unlikely.
The US planes are approached by a Spitfire and Hurricane. That in itself also seems strange as these aircraft tended to have different roles; Hurricanes would attack bombers and Spitfires would attack fighters, so it would be odd for them to pair up. But of course the scenario here is that they are trojan horse aircraft flown by Germans, who probably had slim pickings. A battle occurs and suffice to say the Germans are prized with a more or less intact US Bomber.
This is where things start to unravel in terms of quality. The bomber crew are kept prisoner whilst the remaining US fighter pilot is being searched for with a 'no survivors order' to the search party. As well as the bomber crew being held prisoner, there are two black GIs whose supply vehicle was targeted for aircraft parts, and a female resistance member, who hasn't been shot or seriously tortured, nor is she in the hands of the Gestapo. It's all bizarrely inconsistent, in terms of who is to be killed and who is to remain a prisoner and it is therefore an unsurprising if terrible plot device for later.
It also transpires that these particular Germans have a bomb capable of destroying London, despite that not being in any way historically accurate. And that is what they want the US bomber for. Naturally this complicates things for our prisoners and the pilot on the run, as well as destroys any pretence that this movie has any significant truth to its premise, beyond the covert use of captured WWII aircraft.
Naturally, there is further conflict, which I will not spoil too much, but I have to say that it gets very silly at times.
The ham with relish on top describes how the Germans in particular end up; as caricatures and as almost cartoonishly evil bad guys. Shootouts get truly silly.
Aircraft scenes also become long-winded and overblown.
This film clocks in at 129 mins but should have been more like 105 mins. For no good reason, the conflict scenes are drawn out by actors full of ham and relish and by a director who either allowed it or actively encouraged it. The sense I have is that this was someone's film project rather than a serious commercial venture. No one believed enough in this project to try and sell it with any realism and instead opted for hamming it up with relish on top.
Clearly there was no budget for some things, but other things seem to have been paid for. Aside from a ludicrous sequence where a fighter and a bomber have a dogfight, as if both aircraft could realistically do that, the aircraft scenes are largely believable and quite well done. But they were still longer than necessary.
German ground vehicles seemed to be realistic, but they were also pristine, as if they had just been delivered in a crate, fresh off the production line, and therefore without having had any use before, whatsoever. My best guess there is that well-kept museum pieces may have been used, and were a little too well kept to be realistic in the circumstances of the movie, but couldn't be 'dirtied' or made to look used by the production, as part of the deal made to use them. As I say, best guess.
I struggle to see why you would make a movie like this, unless it was more about the making of it than the presentation of it. It absolutely seems to have been someone's project that was allowed to become bloated, when being more concise would have made a better, shorter, more cost effective movie.
The premise too was a fail because it went for historically inaccurate spectacle, when a more realistic plot (e.g. Bombing Churchill or Eisenhower or King George at a specific time and place, where one or more was scheduled to be), may have worked better. The throwing-in of a super weapon that could destroy London was a bad mistake that just took the whole movie down a road of nonsense from which it does not recover.
All that said, somehow this movie remains just about watchable. If I can get through it to the end, then so can you. Well, at least some of you.
I struggled with the rating but settled on 5 stars. I thought it was slightly closer to a 5 than a 4. Either a 4.5 or a 9/20 would have felt about right.
A sad story of a Kent girl with a rough life, who gets into diamond theft and other assorted shenanigans. It's not bad as stories like this go and passes the time, BUT whoever selected the contemporary background music for this needs to be replaced as woefully inept. It starts supposedly in 1985 and has Brass in Pocket playing from 1979. It switches to four months earlier but has two songs from four years earlier, in 1981 (Bucks Fizz, Making Your Mind Up on the radio and and Soft Cell, Tainted Love in a bar). We also hear Hungry Like the Wolf from 1982, and whilst all of that is at least from the recent past to the time when this is set, it is very strange that we don't hear anything from 1984/85. Finally, this is all blown up when we then seem to time travel to 1989 as Wicked Game by Chris Isaak plays on the jukebox. I have never in all my years seen and heard such a cocked-up selection of supposedly contemporary background music in a professional TV or movie production. It is so bad, it detracts from the show in itself.