|
14 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
No contest as Robert Redford takes down James Gandolfini, 8 Jan 2003
By A Customer
My thought is that James Gandolfini or any action on the face of the planet is not going to turn down an opportunity to act in a movie with Robert Redford, so that means the only reason question is why Redford signed up for this film. For that I have come up with two explanations. The first is that the victory of good men over the tyranny of an evil person in a position of power appeals to Redford's political sensibilities. The other is that "Brubaker" was a seminal experience in his film career and he wanted to try a prison picture from the other side of the bars. Take your pick or make up a reason of your own.The film begins with a voice over narration by Redford enumerating the four key elements that define a castle. You are advised to pay attention to this list because these elements will come into play in the climax of the film where the metaphor of "The Last Castle" is exploited for everything it is worth. In one sense this is a fairly standard film where the hero is a prisoner who decides to take on the brutal prison warden. The fundamental twist is that it is a military prison, so Redford's character, Lieutenant General Eugene Irwin, has some dormant sensibilities that he can restore in the men. On the one hand the film avoids the cliche of Irwin being innocent; he freely admits he was guilty of the crime for which he is being punished (and while the crime is not exactly laid out completely later in the film there is enough of a hole in what we learn to continue thinking Irwin was, at least on some significant level, doing the "right" thing). Gandolfini plays Colnel Winter, who Irwin correctly pegs on the basis of his collection of Civil War bullets as someone who has never been in combat. However, that proves to be the least of Winter's problems because the man has come up with his own ideas regarding how to manage brutal prisoners. At one point we find out Winter has been cleared in three investigations, which is the point at which I want to start banging my head against the wall at the idea that there is no difference between the men who run military prisons in the 21st century and those who worked the torture chambers of the Spanish Inquisition, not to mention the fact that the Judge Advocate's office of the U.S. Army is totally incompetent. Winters is stupid and predictable (sort of like this movie) and we know Irwin will take him down just as soon as he decides to wake up and smell the rubber bullets striking prisoners down at Winter's command. The key to the film, which is clear pretty early on, is that Irwin is going to be one step ahead of Winter once he gets in gear and decides the prison commander needs to be removed from his post. After all, Irwin was a P.O.W. in North Vietnam, still baring the scars of his torture, so Winter and crew have a long way to go to give him a new experience in hell on earth. I think half way through the movie you know pretty much what is going to happen at the end and the only reason question are the specifics on how this will be accomplished (Director Rod Lurie gets credit for throwing a red herring at us that I thought was giving away too much of the ending). David Scarpa's story/script is basically one of those works that echoes dozens of films, not just prison films in the tradition of "The Shawshank Redemption" but also other films from "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." If you take "The Last Castle" as pure Hollywood escapism (i.e.., disengage brain and forget about the way the real world functions) you can enjoy it. The acting and direction are both competent, even if you are left with the definite impression that Redford is on auto-pilot and the fact that Gandolfini is not given all that much to do but look out a window and spout threats. As for the idea Redford is too old to be an action hero, I would not say carrying rocks around constitutes "action" per se.
|