Between 1971 and 1983, New performance of al Pacino was an event ... most of the time. No one was excited when he saw Pacino watch the super -filled "Cruise" playing a accentuated pope in Arthur Schiller's abominable family drama in 1982 "Author!" Author! " In addition, there was always a promise of greatness with Pacino, whether it was presented in the form of "panic in needle park" or "Scarface". And when Your peak is "afternoon of dog day" and/or the godfather Part II, it's a pure, transcendent craft.

However, there was a growing sense with Pacino around the time he did The controversial "Scarface" That the actor avoided the shade and depth of the exhibition that revealed the scenery. His Tony Montana was the culmination of the tendency to grow and gesture (which began in films like "... and justice for all" and "cruise"), on top with a thick Cuban accent. It is a huge performance, but it is also the one that has shown it difficult to shed. The seed of his "hu-ha" 1990s were planted here.

Pacino may have done well to rest for some time after the "Scarface", but he instead threw himself into a historic military EP, which called for a level of physical and emotional dedication that was every part of what he spilled into the classic "Brian de Palm Gangster". The potential payment of ravens and rewards, along with simply pride that did a great job in a great movie, was too much to refuse. He will come to regret his decision.

The military film is a lasting, popular genre, so it is strange that the American Revolution is so rarely visited throughout the history of the medium. At a superficial level, there is a much more attractive outcome than the Vietnam war, but the latter was attractive to many more films.

Producer Irvine Winkler was hit by this in the early 1980s, so he decided to correct this insufficient presentation by making a great independence with "revolution". Instead of telling the story from the point of view of the founders, Winkler went with the script from the underestimated Robert Dillon ("Premier Cutting", "French Relationship II") that focused on the experiences of father (Pacino) and son (Dexter Fletcher) caught in a colonial storm. Iousbopite, Winkler attracted Briton, Hugh Hudson, to direct this American story, but no one attracted the eye because the director used the best winner of the image "Fire" and critically appreciated "Greystok: Legend of Tarzan". Pacino on the ship was expected to be the main candidate for awards.

After all, Hudson's "revolution" was quietly fiasco. Although a far greater disaster in the box office than the notorious apostles such as "Ishtar" and "Island Coto" (stunning $ 346,761 on a $ 28 million budget) and drove Pacino to rest from a four -year break from acting, rarely discussed. Why? Because it is so crushed dull and deprived of turmoil behind the scenes (aside from Gold List that hurry up the film without a polished scenario) there is not much to talk about. Yes, Paulin Kael called a "loose picture" of a Yorkujorer that is "so bad that it puts you in a shock", but it's a wild hyperbola. Its methacrytic rating It is probably too low at 22, but good luck to find someone to throw in defense.

Hudson realized the "revolution" in 2009, exciting 10 minutes from running, and well, shorter is better. It is still defocused and stable, but you can see the shiny on something great. Pacino's sets and historians should look at them. Everyone else should check the best film for a revolutionary war right now: "Johnon Ford's drums after Mohawk."