 |
Commando [VHS] by Mark L. Lester
Buy this VHS video movie at online store in your country
Canada
VHS Tape Cover InformationActor: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dan Hedaya, James Olson, Rae Dawn Chong, Vernon Wells Director: Mark L. Lester Producer: Jeph Loeb Writer: Jeph Loeb Producer: Joel Silver Producer: Matthew Weisman Writer: Matthew Weisman Producer: Robert Kosberg Writer: Steven E. de Souza Edition: VHS Tape Audio: Spanish (Subtitled) Format: Color, NTSC Running Time: 90 minutes Release Date: 1997-12-15 Audience Rating: R (Restricted) Publisher: Fox Home Entertainment Studio: Fox Home Entertainment
VHS Movie Reviews of Commando [VHS]Movie Review: Screen History Summary: 5 StarsThis is perhaps the first criticism of a film ever written by a film-maker who coincidentally also in his time -- like Richard L. Lester -- played the "Holy Trinity." In our case "Trinity" means that the functions of the Writer, Director, and Star are combined in one person. The man executing these three functions in any case has a gigantic job on his hands which can only be fully appreciated by someone who actually has attempted the same. In fact, Richard L. Lester went me one better as he was also the Producer. And the Producer Lester permitted without grumbling the Director Lester to execute what the Writer Lester had planned to do. And Director Lester allowed the Actor Schwartzenegger to do as he pleased.
As the man who plays the "Super. Trinity" earns the applause practically alone -- provided the finished product is a worthy one -- so must he solely take the blame should one or more of his endeavors not have functioned properly.
In the case of "Commando," Lester had to take the blame for the malfunctioning of the "story" and Jeph Loeb may take a goodly share of it for himself. If Mankiewicz wrote the original screen-play as the program announces, then Lester is to blame for not demanding changes and supplementary scenes as well as the omission of existing repetitious ones. If his objections were overruled, he deserves the blame nevertheless for not insisting on those changes. In the souvenir program we are told that Lester "shot" for one week or so "wild," meaning without script. One cannot direct from the "cuff" any longer and perhaps that has something to do with the evident shortcomings of the continuity.
To criticize that film justly is a tough job. Usually, most of the critics simply state their opinion that a film is good, bad or indifferent, but they have not specific knowledge of what makes a film good or bad. It may be the story or only the continuity that is wrong. It may be the direction or the acting. Many times the director gets the blame for a bad story or continuity, although he had nothing to do with them, but had done the best anyone could have done with the material at hand. Actors are blamed for a bad performance when in fact they only did what they were ordered to do by their director. Although Lester did all these things himself, in criticizing his work one must specify in which be has failed.
I shall start (contrary to Lester's technic) at the beginning with the basic element of a film -- the story. As a story proper "Commando" has much to criticize. It is neither big nor vital enough to justify the tremendous outlay of work, time and money which can easily be recognized even by a layman. It is just another story of an over-ambitious man; in this particular case a newspaper publisher, who incidentally aspires to become governor. A man who has built a vast newspaper empire only to see it crumble. A man who collects anything and everything from the four corners of the globe without being in the slightest interested in anything be collects. A man who deserts his wife and child only to be deserted in the end by the woman for whom be deserted. In a way he has ideals at the start, but he has not the necessary character to live up to them. Commando really cares for three things only; Commando, COMMANDO and COMMANDO!
There is nothing particularly new in all that. It has happened thousands of times in real life, and it has been filmed many times. And the same mistake made in previous films has been repeated. The laboratory analysis -- under the microscope -- of Commando's heart and soul has been forgotten.
No man is so utterly selfish and hardboiled that one cannot find some redeeming feature in his motivations, his actions and reactions. Except for the singularly beautiful incident of "Rosebud," the name of his boyhood sleigh which he utters as he dies, there is not one touch in the film that would tend to make Commando human and understandable. To make a man's insatiable ambition, his cruel selfishness and his ruthlessness really understandable and interesting, one should have visual reasons for his having developed into such a monster.
To be truthful, during the first twenty minutes of viewing the film, I, who have been thirty years in this business of making films, did not know what it was all about. I may be dumb, but I have asked at least fifty people who in more or less articulate form described the same experience. I may be hyper-conservative or just plain old fashioned, but I believe in all sincerity that the form of telling the story of Commando is not the desired or successful form in which to tell a screen story. All of us have been accustomed to hear or to see a story start at the beginning. Lester's way of telling the story may have its place in a novel or on the stage, but I am convinced that in the cinema it is entirely out of place.
Of course I understand that Commando having been a newspaper publisher, Lester treated his death from a newspaper angle in short staccato flashes. I do not object to that, but I do object to his beginning with Commando's death. Far be it from me to rewrite the story but I do believe that the story might have been so arranged that Commando's death could have been shown in the old traditional way -- at the end. Its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs the film of its general entertainment value. Aside from this criticism of the shortcomings of the story and the radical departures in telling same, I have nothing but the highest praise for the film. The production as a whole can only be classified as superb. The direction -- and may I say here that only the initiated will ever understand bow much work and responsibility "direction" embraces-is masterful; except for allowing Erskin Sandford to look like a character out of Dickens.
Aside from Lester himself, the laurels for acting go to Dan Hadaya as "Arius" who is magnificent in his human simplicity, Vernon Wells as "Bennett" is excellent, except for the military white "mustache" the make-up man was permitted to paste on his upper-lip in the sanatorium scene. He looks more like a sergeant of artillery in the old soldiers' home than the idealist he was supposed to portray. Rae Dawn Chong as the wife gives as "wifely" a performance as may be desired in order to justify somewhat her husband leaving her. Alysa Milano as the "daughter" sweetheart is very good and in several scenes quite touching in her vulgarity. The rest of the cast, all of which are Mercury players, none of whom I have ever seen on the screen before, give splendid performances. The sets of Van Nest Polglase never distract. The castle sets are magnificent, and so realistic that at times I wondered whether they had really been constructed for the film, or Hearst's castle at Saint Simon had actually been used. The lighting and the photography deserve the highest praise. They prove my contention of long ago that even in sound films we can achieve artistic and beautiful photography assisting and accentuating the drama, which since the advent of sound has been so shamefully neglected. Naturally there are some ignorami (including some film critics) who have called this photography shadowy and spooky. The trouble is that they have been so over-fed with lousy photography since the silent films went out that they have come to believe photography has to be lousy. My high hat off and a very deep bow to Gregg Toland and Matthew Leonetti, A.S.C. The sound in this film is as sound should be.
The "stink" raised by Louella Parsons all over the country about "Commando" supposedly being the more or less authentic life-history of Commando William Randolf Hearst and his supposed objection to having the film shown, the supposed attempt of certain Hollywood producers to chip in large sums of money to repay R.K.O. if they would refrain from releasing the film, the supposed objections raised and restrictions imposed by the Hays office . . . to me is a decidedly "fishy" one. Much more do I, and many others with whom I have talked, believe that this was a very clever advertising scheme that came out of the fertile brain of Richard L. Lester who, in my opinion, would make as great a director of publicity as he has proven himself to be a director in the film. Whatever the truth may be about it, "Commando" is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Lester!
Summary of Commando [VHS]A massively underrated action thriller that kept Arnold Schwarzenegger occupied between mid-'80s blockbusters, Commando may be one of the last shoot-out films ever to have real characters in it. Not, of course, that they're anything other than stereotypes, but they're painted with such detailed, positive strokes that it's impossible not to relate to them. Arnie plays a retired military special-ops officer whose daughter (played with an expert balance of cute/feisty by Alyssa Milano) is kidnapped by the baddest of bad guys, who'll only hand her back as and when he's assassinated a tiresome banana-republic president on their behalf. Needless to say, Arnie is deeply annoyed by this, rescues the moppet single-handed amid more bullets and explosions than you can shake a stuntman's pay cheque at, and... well, why spoil the fun by revealing any more? Co-star Rae Dawn Chong gets some nice one-liners as the innocent bystander who gets caught up in the mayhem. --Roger Thomas
|
 |