Seriously, typical episodes of the TV shows "Combat!" and "Rat Patrol" had more oomph, and better props, scenery and photography, and I wished I was watching either of those two shows rather than this movie before it was over. "Iron Angel" features a decent cast saddled with a poverty row budget and a low energy script. Aside from the goofy "soft porn nurse" scene, it flows pretty well. So the good and bad balance each other out, with nothing spectacular, but nothing horrendous. Other than that, the characters are very believable, except for the final gung ho self sacrifices that result in only two casualties. It looked as silly in the twentieth century as it does today. I understand why the director did it, but it was a bad call. It probably would have been a better movie if it wasn't for the goofy video of nurses as described by the group's malcontent. There aren't any over-dramatizations here. They have an objective, and come across the nurse. ![]() Jim Davis gets to be the main main here in a five man unit without an officer. Still, there's a definite line between liberal and outright Treason and Treachory. I had fun with the MASH TV series, too, I'm liberal, and anti war, and I won't be a gung ho camp follower. That may hit some modern day people below the belt. Those people brainwashed by MASH may not like it, but believe it or not, during the Korean War we actually had some Americans who were on our side, even nurses like the one in the film. It's set in the Korean War, and the Koreans are the enemy. It's more of a gung ho war film than many people like, but not overly so. Explanations that don't make a bit of sense when one is familiar with the films. ![]() When this is brought up, those voters will come up with obvious lies for the reasons why. I can prove this, because older films, like this one, get lower rankings from these 1 and 2 voters, and newer movies get too many 9 and 10 rankings. We know that many people on IMDb are in the movie business, or related to current directors, actors, etc, and have interests that aren't fair representations. It is an okay film, and they probably felt a need to counter what were votes for subversive purposes only. ![]() In fact a plurality of voters rate it 5, but the next highest numbers are those who rated it 1 and 10, and maybe 2, which is clearly voting to change the statistics. So far, this movie is at about 3/10 from IMDb viewers, even though this is clearly a perfect representation of an average film, an obvious 5/10, which we'll get into later.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |