MovieChat Forums > The Last Castle (2001) Discussion > Good cast + budget, spoilt by amazing pl...

Good cast + budget, spoilt by amazing plot holes, stereotypes + schmaltz

posted 12 years ago by Goose-62
8 replies | jump to latest

Redford is fine, Gandolfini is great, Ruffalo,(one of the best actors around today) is very good, and the money spent is obvious, but jeepers, some of the rest is shocking.

Although the basic storyline is reliable and does usually entertain, it has unfortunately been done to death, and it isn't made any fresher this time around.

Also, we have the stereotypes:

The sadistic warden, (Gandolfini).
The anti-hero hero, (Redford).
The hustler (Ruffalo).
The big tough good guy, Beaupre (Goodman).
The sympathetic victim, Aguilar (Collins,jr). Just to ask a question how did a stuttering, gibbering idiot like Aguilar be allowed into the U.S. military, never mind become a Corporal?

The plot holes are staggering, where on earth did the inmates hide the arsenal of weaponry they had, not to mention that huge trebuchet??

And coming under attack like that, I'm sure any other warden would have issued use of live ammunition long before Winter did.

And the schmaltz in the closing scenes with the saluting of the star and stripes by all the combatants was just too much saccharine.

I do like this film, but the obvious silliness spoils it greatly.

[–] tmntvspr-269-277176 10 years ago

I believe they are more archetypes then Stereotypes. Considering the are only heroes, antihereoes, and villains, what role could the main character be? Even Shindler in Shindler's list was an antihero.

Yes, I agree Aguilar is a weak character.

"The plot holes are staggering, where on earth did the inmates hide the arsenal of weaponry they had, not to mention that huge trebuchet?? "

They show where they hide it quite explicitly in the film. And the ENTIRE prison was in on it, it's hard to stop hundreds of people from building and hiding. As for the trebuchet, take presumably a crane to lift heavy rocks for the wall, plus cable and a loosened fulcrum, I'm sure MANY military minds could figure it out.

"And coming under attack like that, I'm sure any other warden would have issued use of live ammunition "

He was just warned by a General that if one more person dies under his command he'd be in trouble. He probably thought Irwin was trying to let someone get killed in the riot (he did get court-martialed for leading men to their death). Once everything was beyond repair, he authorised lethal force because even with an investigation, it would be justified. Plus he lied to the general that it was under control and it very much wasn't.

"And the schmaltz in the closing scenes with the saluting of the star and stripes by all the combatants was just too much saccharine. "

Cheesy? A bit, but the flag was raised correctly, thus saying, like the wall, it was not under distress because this was the prisoners castle.

I thought it was a great movie, but we are all entitled to our opinions. Just thought I'd vocalize mine like you did.

[–] ChefC 10 years ago

The smaller stuff can be explained away but the trebuchet!? How did they build that and hide it from the guards, just around the corner of the yard.

Also what's going to happen to Yates now he killed 3 soldiers? (Guy in the tower and presumably the two in the chopper he knocked out then crashed).

And yes the 'salute the flag' ending was cringe worthy, unless you're American maybe? It seems that overly patriotic stuff is popular over there, as if you would movingly salute a flag after watching your commanding officer shot dead.

I still enjoy the film though, even if the 3rd act was very unrealistic.

-------
Gone too soon:
Firefly|New Amsterdam|Journeyman|Life|terriers|SGU|Prime Suspect

[–] BlakeSlayton 9 years ago

Also what's going to happen to Yates now he killed 3 soldiers? (Guy in the tower and presumably the two in the chopper he knocked out then crashed).

Remember Yates landed the helicopter once he knocked them out. Once on the ground other inmates came and dragged them out and took them away. Then Yates saw the tower guard still shooting so he flew up to it and then took it out with the tail rotor. So I think he killed just that guard.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

It's a rousing story that tends to suck you in, especially if you have a weakness for prison movies. But the somewhat implausible plot doesn't stand much scrutiny, especially initially having to accept that a 3 star general with clearly no criminal record is sent to a maximum security prison for 10 years, because one of his operations happened to go pear shaped.🐭

[–] IMDbeans 9 years ago

+1 re the schmaltz

[–] Blueghost 9 years ago

The only thing that pisses me off about this movie is the title. To me "The Last Castle" tells of a movie about knights clashing on the field of honor, but this is another one of those "look at how artistic our movie title is, because it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the middle ages, just an allegorical reference with some equally allegorical scenes for allegorical medieval warfare", which to me is just another goddamn bait-and-switch "ivory tower" / "this is good for you" BS salespitch for a film.

Call the goddamn movie what it is; a prison flick, and give the goddamn movie the right title for hell's sake.

Call it... "The Last Prison Fort" or some BS title like that.

Sorry if I sound like a philistine or some uneducated Joe six-pack, but it's like you get to know some of these so-called artists, and you ask them what they know about the military, or police procedure, or anything about history OTHER than the second world war, and all these goddamn bastards know is psychology.

They always got their paranoid ivory tower heads up their paranoid ivory tower asses.

Enough said.

[–] BlakeSlayton 9 years ago

The plot holes are staggering, where on earth did the inmates hide the arsenal of weaponry they had, not to mention that huge trebuchet??

If I remember correctly, the trebuchet was assembled using various pieces of everyday items found in the yard.

When the fight started, I remember seeing them taking pieces from the weightlifting areas as well as other items throughout the yard and then piecing them together to create the trebuchet.

They apparently had figured out how to build one using all those different pieces beforehand and then when the time came they simply put them all together off in one of the corners of the yard.

I believe the same process applied to the other weaponry they used as well.

[–] tripper-09331 8 years ago

If I remember correctly, the trebuchet was assembled using various pieces of everyday items found in the yard.

That's exactly correct. I just finished watching the movie 5 minutes ago.

They didn't hide any large weaponry. Everything was in small pieces hidden under the rocks of the wall or in various steel drums. They then assembled everything on the spot to make their weapons of war.

Yes, of course there were several parts where if that one guy didn't do something in time, someone missed a shot or even a few inmates didn't follow through it would fall apart. However, it was small enough that I could let it go considering it's a movie.

The plot was somewhat predictable. I don't think it had been as beaten to death in 2001 when it came out. 15 years later maybe it's been rehashed more.

I still was pleased with how original the planning of the final battle was and the weapons they used. It had enough twists and turns (like when you find out they purposely get caught just to find out what the wardens techniques are) to keep me entertained.

"Common sense is not so common"