I kind of disagree with the guy who wrote a review for this film. I enjoyed it. As a student of History and a US Army Infantry Officer, I think it brought up some great points about what was happening during this time.
"What are fighting words these days? Babykiller?"
As James Caan kicks some butt.
This film is one of my all time favorites. The characters are extremely believable and well put together. A most entertaining story and 10/10
Probably James Caan's finest film after The Godfather. Also DB Sweeney as the enthusiastic newcomer to The Old Guard. But I thought the best actor was James Earl Jones as Goody. Completely believable as a Sergeant Major. Also interesting to see Laurence Fishburne, all grown up since his role as 'Mr Clean' in Apocalyse Now.
Have been in the military myself (British Forces), I've come across similar characters and there's a moment in the film where Goody talks to Dean Stockwell after Clell goes off on his own, and he says that "We're the middle-management Homer, the people that keep the wheels turning to let America get ahead" - that is so true in any armed forces. It's the senior NCOs and the non-executive officers than run 'the business'.
My only fault with the film was a continuity mistake. When Clell (Caan) goes into the chapel to say a few final words to Willow, he rips his Combat Infantry Badge from his chest and places it, heart-felt, on the coffin. A short while later, we see Clell during the service by the grave and the CIB is back in place. What did he do? Run away and sew another on?
Apart from that one error, the rest of the film is superb. Especially the way Clell is so 'fish out of water' courting Sam and the way he reacted to the "baby-killer" jibe. Tried to turn away after politely agreeing to disagree, but defending himself with deadly force, the moment it became physical. You can see that he is fiercly loyal to his family, the US Army and he wants to do his best to protect it from the mess the politicians made in SE Asia. In the end, you can see that, like a grieving father, he does his best to rescue as many individual soldiers as he can, by requesting another tour of Vietnam.
I don't see Gardens of Stone as an anti-war film, more of an explanation to outsiders of the military mind-set. The military is a family, the officers and NCOs the fathers, the fellow soldiers are brothers and sisters. If you see this film you can feel the emotion of loss and sadness for willow, but the fierce loyalty and pride of being a member of the family. This same emotion, or brotherhood, can be seen in emergency services. The police, fire and medical service. But it is only in combat, when you are under fire, that you really understand the true bond of brotherhood. The only other film where I saw this explained really well, was Black Hawk Down.
Both these films are in my favorites list.
[deleted]
I decided to add another post to this movie simply because I agree with everything said in this thread, and especially my surprise at discovering there was so few posts! Almost any movie in the IMDb, no matter how good or bad, seems to have tons of posts so I have no explanation for the lack of posts.
I actually only discovered this movie about 4 years ago, running on HBO or one of those channels and was captivated by it. Having seen all of the "war" films of the late 80's... Hamburger Hill, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon etc etc etc... it was a nice change of pace to see a story from this era that showed a totally different viewpoint of that war and the men in the military.
For the poster who thought it was boring, go watch one of the action war movies I listed above... you obviously do not grasp the point of this movie or the concept that you can have a storyline set during a war, involving military men that covers something other than blowing people up, doing drugs and raping women.
This isn't a story *about* the war per se', it wasn't supposed to be... it is the story of these men... and a compelling story it is. The older experienced man who has seen action and longs for a normal life, the idealistic young man who is hungering for action.
I am a fan of James Caan and enjoyed his performance, never been much of a Sweeny fan but he did an acceptable job with this character for what it was supposed to be... I've seen critism about him seeming like a bland, naive kid... well that's what his character was supposed to be!
James Earl Jones... oh my what can you say?? That man just makes the movie. He is definitely one of my favorite actors with one of the most commanding screen presences in the business... he steals the limelight in any movie he is in, no matter how small a role (like Sommersby)... having him in such a commanding military role is a natural.
Probably because I've found most people who watch films are rarely literate enough to make more than a cursory commentary, usually complaining about something! Although, naturally those of us who peruse IMDB regularly obviously don't fit in that category! LOL
As to your comments about James Earl Jones and his characterizations in GoS, what can you expect from a fellow Ranger? I've known lots of Sergeants Major over the years, and his portrayal fits a number of them. Smart, irrascible, literate, commanding - without playing the "tough guy" role aka the First Sergeant - yet compassionate and passionate, about their soldiers, their Army and their family.
While I must admit, I, too, have never heard quite the exchange as Jones' character had with Sweeney's in the barracks during inspection ("How do worms copulate?"), I had a CSM at my last posting who had a sense of humor almost as bad! A man like that just has to live on, if not on earth, then - in the words of Dean Stockwell's character - "parading around on my [deleted] post the rest of your life!" On into eternity.
And speaking of Stockwell, few realize his tremendous range and tremendous range of experiences - his first efforts in uniform came playing the 10-year-old son of Nick and Nora Charles homw from military school in the Thin Man series! Another natural!
There, hopefully that satisfies your craving for posts!
I saw this movie for the first time on DVD last evening.
I probably would never have known about the film had I not become acquainted with Nicholas Proffitt, who wrote the novel on which the film is based.
As is usually the case, the movie is no match for the novel in terms of character and plot development. I won't bore anyone with a lengthy dissertation on why I think the book was better, but suffice it to say the focus of the novel is more on Pvt. Willow (D.B. Sweeney's character) than on Sgt. Hazzard (Caan). As a result, Willow's eventually becoming an infantry officer, his assigment to and experiences and eventual death in Viet Nam are more moving by far than they are portrayed in the film.
Sweeney's performance in the film was, for me, a weakness. Caan was not at his best. And yes, James Earl Jones did steal the movie.
If you liked the movie, by all means track down a copy of the novel and give it a read. You will not be disappointed.
I read the book before the movie came out. If you liked the movie, there is so much more in the book that really adds to the story.
shareI read this book in 1986 when I was sixteen years old and pulled it down off my Dad's bookshelf. I remember how much I enjoyed it, and how I felt when I completed it. I remember being seventeen and telling my girlfriend that I wanted to see GoS, and she asked me why would I want to go see a war movie. Well, I went to see it without her, and I was genuinely impressed with the portrayals of the lead characters.
Fast forward to 1999. I had an old VHS tape of GoS that I recorded from HBO late one night almost ten years earlier that I found in the bottom of a closet. I had completely forgotten about the movie, so with a bit of excitment I popped it in the VCR and showed it to my wife. She genuinely loved the movie, and she cried her eyes out. The tape was then lost in a spring cleaning.
Much to my surprise, about a month ago I found the DVD in a discount bin at Wal-Mart. It has been nearly twenty years since I first watched this movie, and it is as good as it was then, maybe even better.
Gardens of Stone stands among my all-time favorites: It is one of those movies that I can watch again and again.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the other posters here. This movie is a mess. It's a bunch of disjointed scenes without a whole lot of motivation connecting them. I hated seeing the waste of talent in this film.
Consider, for example, the subplot of Clell's and Sam's love story. They meet cute, the dinner scene is done well, there's a short one-liner between Sam and Willow where for the first time we learn of Sam's deep dislike of the war, there's the fight at the garden party between Clell and the attorney, and the next thing we know Sam's telling Clell that she loves him. There's nothing wrong with any of these individual scenes, but together they add up to nothing. Just who is Sam? How does she feel about seeing a friend of hers -- who she agrees with -- get beat up by Sam? I'm not saying her reactions aren't possible, it's just that there's nothing to connect the dots. Sam is just a cipher.
Or take Rachel's father, the colonel. He and his motivations are just thrown at us. Do some officers worry about the politics of getting ahead in the Army, even at the expense of their family? Absolutely. And Coppola does a lot with a few scenes to sketch out his character (take the look on his face at the wedding when Goody yells out a coarse remark). But the movie does nothing to make us care about it.
Or consider Willow and Rachel. Willow takes Rachel out on a date, we learn of Rachel's and Willow's backstory with a couple of lines, and the next thing we know Rachel is sticking her engagement ring under her parents' noses. In the arc of these character's lives this makes perfect sense given their history, but for the audience it's impossible to connect with these two at this point in the movie. Besides the brief scene at the start of the movie, we just met Rachel only a few minutes before.
It seems to me that those people who do think this is a great film largely have backgrounds in the military. So many of these disjointed scenes no doubt do resonate with them, and as I said before, many of them are expertly done. But Coppola tried to stuff too much into this film, and the soul just got lost. He could have built a great movie around any of the major subplots of this film and done a much better job of examining the conflicts of Vietnam on an Army soldier.
As an example of just what I mean, I would suggest seeing "Taking Chance (2009)", a superb HBO film which follows the simple act of transporting a soldier who was killed in Iraq from his arrival back in the US to his gravesite in Wyoming. It touches on many of the same issues as "Gardens of Stone", but in a far more effective and emotional way.
Just remember, it was an adaptation of a book and he was trying to be faithful to the book. However, like many other adapatations from novels, you just can't cover the same kind of ground visually in something under 2 hours as what is contained in a book. Certain things have to be glossed over, other things omitted completely, multiple characters get mashed together to form composite characters, and other things have to be re-written entirely so that it works on the screen. I thought he did a pretty good job all things considered.
I liked the movie, however, not only do I have a backgroun in the military, I also spent 7 years in the Old Guard during the 90s, so it hits a little closer to home for me.