Alan Alda, still trying to be Hollywood's Everyman, wrote, directed and starred in SWEET LIBERTY,a relatively entertaining comedy about a small town professor who has written a book about what went on his town during the revolutionary war and has sold the film rights. The film chronicles the arrival of the film crew to do the film on location and Alda's exasperation at all the changes they want to make to his book; however, his attitudes toward what they are doing to his book take a back seat when he meets the film's leading lady (Michelle Pfeiffer) who apparently physically resembles the character she is playing to a T but as Alda finds, out is nothing like her. This movie is just so Alan Alda and like all of his movies, the characters all seem to talk and think like Alda but I have come to expect this from an Alda movie after THE FOUR SEASONS. Alda has assembled an impressive cast including Michael Caine as a hammy actor and Bob Hoskins, extremely amusing as the screenwriter who pretends to want Alda's input on his screenplay while seeking his constant approval at the same time. The film does run out of steam before fade out, but Alda and company manage to keep it afloat for most of the ride.
23 Reviews
Hawkeye and the American Revolution
bkoganbing3 December 2012
It was not too much of a strain for Alan Alda to do Sweet Liberty as his character of Hawkeye Pierce from MASH stepped right from the small screen to the big. Imagine Hawkeye as an American history professor writing a book on the southern theater of the American Revolution and you've got a start to Sweet Liberty.
Alda has not only written a book, but it was so good that he got some big bucks from Hollywood for the screen rights. And the company is going to film on location in North Carolina where Alda teaches history at a college and where he participates in the annual recreation of the Battle of Cowpens. But one read of what the Hollywood writers have done to his work and he's ready to sue.
Well that's not going to work because they've got the contract and the lawyers to back them up. How to salvage his work, for that he turns to screenwriter Bob Hoskins to help him navigate the ways of the movie business jungle. Hoskins too would like to see his name on something worthwhile and maybe Academy Award winning.
This involves Alda wooing in a different way stars of the film Michael Caine and Michelle Pheiffer. Caine is quite a wooer himself and the best performance from the supporting cast is that of Lois Chiles who plays Caine's wife who's decided he's been on too long a leash.
But in the scenes he's in Bob Hoskins truly steals Sweet Liberty. He's the quintessential Hollywood man who drags Alan Alda along through the highways and byways of movie speak. Saul Rubinek is also good as a most harassed and egotistical director.
I would like to have seen more of Lillian Gish playing Alda's dotty mother who wants to hook up with a bricklayer she had a LONG ago fling with. It's that way with Alzheimer's patients they remember something from ages ago, but not what they had for dinner yesterday. All I can say was the sex must have been fabulous.
Sweet Liberty is nice sparkling comedy about the business of making movies.
Alda has not only written a book, but it was so good that he got some big bucks from Hollywood for the screen rights. And the company is going to film on location in North Carolina where Alda teaches history at a college and where he participates in the annual recreation of the Battle of Cowpens. But one read of what the Hollywood writers have done to his work and he's ready to sue.
Well that's not going to work because they've got the contract and the lawyers to back them up. How to salvage his work, for that he turns to screenwriter Bob Hoskins to help him navigate the ways of the movie business jungle. Hoskins too would like to see his name on something worthwhile and maybe Academy Award winning.
This involves Alda wooing in a different way stars of the film Michael Caine and Michelle Pheiffer. Caine is quite a wooer himself and the best performance from the supporting cast is that of Lois Chiles who plays Caine's wife who's decided he's been on too long a leash.
But in the scenes he's in Bob Hoskins truly steals Sweet Liberty. He's the quintessential Hollywood man who drags Alan Alda along through the highways and byways of movie speak. Saul Rubinek is also good as a most harassed and egotistical director.
I would like to have seen more of Lillian Gish playing Alda's dotty mother who wants to hook up with a bricklayer she had a LONG ago fling with. It's that way with Alzheimer's patients they remember something from ages ago, but not what they had for dinner yesterday. All I can say was the sex must have been fabulous.
Sweet Liberty is nice sparkling comedy about the business of making movies.
A missed opportunity.
TOMASBBloodhound5 November 2008
I had hoped to like this film a bit more than I did, and I certainly expected to laugh more. Sweet Liberty is an Alan Alda project through and through. In it, he plays a history professor whose historical novel is going to be made into a movie during one crazy summer in the little college town. Everyone is excited about the upcoming shoot, but Alda's excitement turns to disgust once the cast and crew arrive. He finally gets a look at the script and finds out that the movie will be sort of a sex comedy with little regard for historical accuracy. Alda then sets out with the screenwriter to try and convince the actors and director to film his own version. While all of this is going on, we sit through several arguments about Alda's relationship status with his girlfriend. We are also treated to the eccentricities of Alda's ancient mother played by legendary actress Lillian Gish. Overall, there is just too much going on, and the film never quite sustains any comedic momentum.
The film has some genuine strengths. The cast is an eclectic bunch of old stars, new faces, and genial nobodies. Alda and Michael Caine basically play themselves and do a very good job. Michelle Pfeiffer is not only beautiful as hell, but she also gives a strong early performance as the lead actress. Bob Hoskins' character is well-written, but he plays the man in too shrill of a manner to be taken seriously. His screenwriter character has some wonderful points to make about using flattery to get the attention of the actors and director if you want them to change what they are doing. But he is just so hyper that you cringe whenever you hear his voice. Saul Rubinek is good as the hotshot, pompous young director who is only out to show the audience three things: People defying authority, destruction of property, and people taking off their clothing. That's what industry research shows that younger audiences want, he informs Alda more than once.
There are other problems besides the annoying Hoskins character. I'm sure it would seem desirable for an icon like Lillian Gish to be included in just about any film at that time. However, her character and scenes are just not needed and end up being more of a distraction than anything else. Alda and his girlfriend have about the same argument at least half a dozen times. Another scene looks like it will give a huge laugh payoff, but it falls flat. In it, a group of stunt men are in a bar with some of the local re-creators of the Battle of Cowpens who will also be used as extras in the film. The stunt men are trying to tell the amateurs how to fall in the battle scene. One of the stunt men breaks out one of those harnesses that people use to get pulled backwards through doorways in bar fight scenes. And you think you are going to see one of the amateurs get unknowingly hooked up to it and taken for the ride of his life. But alas, they apparently thought it would be funnier for the guy just to fall down on his back like an idiot. Another missed opportunity! 5 of 10 stars.
The Hound.
The film has some genuine strengths. The cast is an eclectic bunch of old stars, new faces, and genial nobodies. Alda and Michael Caine basically play themselves and do a very good job. Michelle Pfeiffer is not only beautiful as hell, but she also gives a strong early performance as the lead actress. Bob Hoskins' character is well-written, but he plays the man in too shrill of a manner to be taken seriously. His screenwriter character has some wonderful points to make about using flattery to get the attention of the actors and director if you want them to change what they are doing. But he is just so hyper that you cringe whenever you hear his voice. Saul Rubinek is good as the hotshot, pompous young director who is only out to show the audience three things: People defying authority, destruction of property, and people taking off their clothing. That's what industry research shows that younger audiences want, he informs Alda more than once.
There are other problems besides the annoying Hoskins character. I'm sure it would seem desirable for an icon like Lillian Gish to be included in just about any film at that time. However, her character and scenes are just not needed and end up being more of a distraction than anything else. Alda and his girlfriend have about the same argument at least half a dozen times. Another scene looks like it will give a huge laugh payoff, but it falls flat. In it, a group of stunt men are in a bar with some of the local re-creators of the Battle of Cowpens who will also be used as extras in the film. The stunt men are trying to tell the amateurs how to fall in the battle scene. One of the stunt men breaks out one of those harnesses that people use to get pulled backwards through doorways in bar fight scenes. And you think you are going to see one of the amateurs get unknowingly hooked up to it and taken for the ride of his life. But alas, they apparently thought it would be funnier for the guy just to fall down on his back like an idiot. Another missed opportunity! 5 of 10 stars.
The Hound.
"Screw Historical Accuracy!"
stryker-526 December 1999
Michael, a history teacher in a small East Coast town, has written a scholarly book about the American Revolution. Hollywood has decided to turn it into a movie, and cast and crew are descending on Michael's hometown to shoot the location scenes. The author gets a shock when he sees how is work is being revamped for the big screen.
Alan Alda wrote, directed and stars in this good-natured romantic comedy. We are in classic Alda terrain here, the unspectacular small-detail world of domestic discord and couples who feel compelled to analyse their love lives. "You buy dishes together," ventures Michael, "and you invite people over. Then you talk about them in the bathroom while you're brushing your teeth." This is the microsmic universe that Alda loves to explore.
Michael has three problems, all linked, which are currently exasperating him. Firstly, his aged mother (Lillian Gish) is very dotty and in need of care, something she steadfastly refuses to accept. Secondly, his lover Gretchen (Lise Hilboldt) won't cohabit unless he marries her. Thirdly, the Hollywood company which has come out east to make the film has desecrated his work by turning it into a lightweight (and historically worthless) love story. "I just wrote the book from which the movie has NOT been taken," fumes Michael.
Faith Healey (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a method actress and a very big star. When in costume she is in character, even to the point of talking in 'colonial' English offscreen. Michael and Faith become romantically entangled, until Michael realises his mistake. There is no person at the core of the actress - just a creature voracious for the period detail that only Michael can supply. She was playing the part of a lover in order to draw from him what she needed.
Elliott James is selfish and shallow, but incredibly charming and enormous fun to be around. A leading man who cares nothing for films, or even other people, he lives his life as one long party. Michael Caine parodies himself, and in the process turns in a commendable performance as the eternal matinee idol.
Alda can certainly write. His dialogue always flows beautifully, and his understated characters are utterly believable. When Michael's 'authentic' 18th-century dialogue is spoken, the venerable cadences are gorgeous.
Essentially, the film is about the artifice of movie-making. "Who really knows what happened a coupla hundred years ago?" asks the director (Saul Rubinek). The issue is, how far should film-makers go in disregarding historical truth in order to obtain audience approval? Films are, of necessity, separate and distinct from their source material - but in the trade-off between authenticity and popularity, where is the balance to be struck?
A New England community such as this one is fiercely proud of its heritage, and indeed very knowledgeable about it. The guys who stage War of Independence re-enactments know in minute detail about the manoeuvres, skirmishes, equipment and ammunition which constituted real events and which form their living culture. It is an affront to these people for ignorant West Coasters to play fast and loose with their sacred lore.
In a film about the artifice of film, Alda makes intelligent use of cinema tricks and conventions. Elliott insists on doing his own stunt work - and yet for his triumphant fall into the pond, Michael Caine is doubled by a stunt man. The blizzard scene is shot in glorious New England sunshine. The steadycam revolve shot which marks the romantic climax of the 'film' film is repeated at the romantic climax of 'our' film.
With delicious malice, Alda satirises the internal dynamics of cast and crew. Bob Hoskins is the writer with no brains and no class who helps Michael understand the power struggles within the movie's little community, and how best to exploit these envies and vanities in order to get what he wants.
Sword fencing is a subtle metaphorical strain running through the film. When we see Michael and Gretchen fencing in the opening scene, the play-fight represents the involvement and the conflict inherent in their relationship. The 'audience' of fencing masks on the wall stands for the public attention to which they will shortly be exposed. Newly-arrived film crew members unload Scottish broadswords, showing from the outset that there will be brash disregard for authenticity. Elliott and Michael sublimate their clash of wills in a protracted sword duel.
We are told (and shown) that teenage cinema audiences expect three things in a movie: defiance of authority, destruction of property, and nudity. Alda's film complies with the formula, but also intelligently undermines it. Gretchen's quiet jealousy is excellent, as is Michael's stiff back, expressing vehement disapproval without moving a muscle. A film can stimulate eye, ear and intellect: it doesn't have to follow shallow formulae.
If the action climax is a little too smug and convenient, Alda can be forgiven. He is making smart, literate films for grown-ups. Long may he continue.
Alan Alda wrote, directed and stars in this good-natured romantic comedy. We are in classic Alda terrain here, the unspectacular small-detail world of domestic discord and couples who feel compelled to analyse their love lives. "You buy dishes together," ventures Michael, "and you invite people over. Then you talk about them in the bathroom while you're brushing your teeth." This is the microsmic universe that Alda loves to explore.
Michael has three problems, all linked, which are currently exasperating him. Firstly, his aged mother (Lillian Gish) is very dotty and in need of care, something she steadfastly refuses to accept. Secondly, his lover Gretchen (Lise Hilboldt) won't cohabit unless he marries her. Thirdly, the Hollywood company which has come out east to make the film has desecrated his work by turning it into a lightweight (and historically worthless) love story. "I just wrote the book from which the movie has NOT been taken," fumes Michael.
Faith Healey (Michelle Pfeiffer) is a method actress and a very big star. When in costume she is in character, even to the point of talking in 'colonial' English offscreen. Michael and Faith become romantically entangled, until Michael realises his mistake. There is no person at the core of the actress - just a creature voracious for the period detail that only Michael can supply. She was playing the part of a lover in order to draw from him what she needed.
Elliott James is selfish and shallow, but incredibly charming and enormous fun to be around. A leading man who cares nothing for films, or even other people, he lives his life as one long party. Michael Caine parodies himself, and in the process turns in a commendable performance as the eternal matinee idol.
Alda can certainly write. His dialogue always flows beautifully, and his understated characters are utterly believable. When Michael's 'authentic' 18th-century dialogue is spoken, the venerable cadences are gorgeous.
Essentially, the film is about the artifice of movie-making. "Who really knows what happened a coupla hundred years ago?" asks the director (Saul Rubinek). The issue is, how far should film-makers go in disregarding historical truth in order to obtain audience approval? Films are, of necessity, separate and distinct from their source material - but in the trade-off between authenticity and popularity, where is the balance to be struck?
A New England community such as this one is fiercely proud of its heritage, and indeed very knowledgeable about it. The guys who stage War of Independence re-enactments know in minute detail about the manoeuvres, skirmishes, equipment and ammunition which constituted real events and which form their living culture. It is an affront to these people for ignorant West Coasters to play fast and loose with their sacred lore.
In a film about the artifice of film, Alda makes intelligent use of cinema tricks and conventions. Elliott insists on doing his own stunt work - and yet for his triumphant fall into the pond, Michael Caine is doubled by a stunt man. The blizzard scene is shot in glorious New England sunshine. The steadycam revolve shot which marks the romantic climax of the 'film' film is repeated at the romantic climax of 'our' film.
With delicious malice, Alda satirises the internal dynamics of cast and crew. Bob Hoskins is the writer with no brains and no class who helps Michael understand the power struggles within the movie's little community, and how best to exploit these envies and vanities in order to get what he wants.
Sword fencing is a subtle metaphorical strain running through the film. When we see Michael and Gretchen fencing in the opening scene, the play-fight represents the involvement and the conflict inherent in their relationship. The 'audience' of fencing masks on the wall stands for the public attention to which they will shortly be exposed. Newly-arrived film crew members unload Scottish broadswords, showing from the outset that there will be brash disregard for authenticity. Elliott and Michael sublimate their clash of wills in a protracted sword duel.
We are told (and shown) that teenage cinema audiences expect three things in a movie: defiance of authority, destruction of property, and nudity. Alda's film complies with the formula, but also intelligently undermines it. Gretchen's quiet jealousy is excellent, as is Michael's stiff back, expressing vehement disapproval without moving a muscle. A film can stimulate eye, ear and intellect: it doesn't have to follow shallow formulae.
If the action climax is a little too smug and convenient, Alda can be forgiven. He is making smart, literate films for grown-ups. Long may he continue.
screwy comedy
willrams21 May 2003
Michael, played by Alan Alda, writes a History of the American Revolution, sells it to a producer, and films it. Alan Aldo wrote the script and produced it. The whole story is screwed up by Hollywood, and altho the oneliners are funny, there is so much confusion, and dissension; too many people involved. If it wasn't for the fine actors Michael Caine, Michele Pfeiffer, and that grand lady of old films Lillian Gish, it wouldn't amount to much. 6/10
Enjoyable, laid-back film
vincentlynch-moonoi2 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a rather laid-back, but enjoyable movie; the type that more mature audiences will enjoy.
The story is relatively interesting. Hollywood types decide to make a movie based on an historical book written by Alan Alda's character. Of course, the movie company cares nothing about the historical accuracy of the Revolutionary War era script, while Alda (and the community) care a great deal. Meanwhile there are various romantic situations involving Alda and the film's starring actress (Michelle Pfeiffer), and Alda's girlfriend (Lise Hilboldt) and the film's lead actor (Michael Caine; who did not get top billing here); although these assignations are handled in a rather urbane manner. Alda and the community get their revenge when the key battle scene of the movie is filmed. It's all very good natured.
Alan Alda is very good here; just right for this kind of laid-back treatment of the story. It made me wish that more Alda's acting career had been in film, rather than in "MASH". Michael Caine is fine here, although the role is clearly a supporting role, rather than a starring role. Michelle Pfeiffer is satisfactory; quite appealing in some scenes, and then not so in other scenes; an uneven performance. Bob Hoskins has a supporting role as a decidedly unclassy screenwriter; nothing very notable. Lise Hilboldt is very good as Alda's girlfriend. It's a delight to see Lillian Gish in a role as Alda's eccentric mother; her next to the last film. Saul Rubinek plays the film's director; again, nothing special here.
Is this a box office smash? No. A rather casual film with a decent script and goo acting. As at least one reviewer indicated, it could have been more satirical, but I don't think that was the intent. Particularly worthwhile if you enjoy Alan Alda,
The story is relatively interesting. Hollywood types decide to make a movie based on an historical book written by Alan Alda's character. Of course, the movie company cares nothing about the historical accuracy of the Revolutionary War era script, while Alda (and the community) care a great deal. Meanwhile there are various romantic situations involving Alda and the film's starring actress (Michelle Pfeiffer), and Alda's girlfriend (Lise Hilboldt) and the film's lead actor (Michael Caine; who did not get top billing here); although these assignations are handled in a rather urbane manner. Alda and the community get their revenge when the key battle scene of the movie is filmed. It's all very good natured.
Alan Alda is very good here; just right for this kind of laid-back treatment of the story. It made me wish that more Alda's acting career had been in film, rather than in "MASH". Michael Caine is fine here, although the role is clearly a supporting role, rather than a starring role. Michelle Pfeiffer is satisfactory; quite appealing in some scenes, and then not so in other scenes; an uneven performance. Bob Hoskins has a supporting role as a decidedly unclassy screenwriter; nothing very notable. Lise Hilboldt is very good as Alda's girlfriend. It's a delight to see Lillian Gish in a role as Alda's eccentric mother; her next to the last film. Saul Rubinek plays the film's director; again, nothing special here.
Is this a box office smash? No. A rather casual film with a decent script and goo acting. As at least one reviewer indicated, it could have been more satirical, but I don't think that was the intent. Particularly worthwhile if you enjoy Alan Alda,
Lighthearted film-within-a-film
HotToastyRag2 December 2017
Written, directed, and starring Alan Alda, Sweet Liberty follows, well, Alan Alda as he gets introduced to the wacky world of Hollywood. He plays an author—which foreshadows his real-life accomplishments, since he later wrote three memoirs and became a New York Times bestseller—whose novel is being adapted into a film. Even though he has his hands full with his personal life, when he becomes surrounded by the cast and crew, he learns an entirely new definition of drama.
If you like movies about making movies, you'll probably want to rent this one. The lead actors of the film within the film are Michael Caine and Michelle Pfeiffer, and it's always fun to watch beautiful people on the big screen. A ninety-two-year-old Lillian Gish plays Alan's mother, and Lois Chiles and Bob Hoskins join the supporting cast. In general, I find this genre a little too over-the-top in the backstage "drama", and even though I love Michael Caine, this movie didn't really break the mold. But there are some pretty funny scenes, and if you don't take it too seriously, it can be fun with a bunch of your friends and a bowl of popcorn.
If you like movies about making movies, you'll probably want to rent this one. The lead actors of the film within the film are Michael Caine and Michelle Pfeiffer, and it's always fun to watch beautiful people on the big screen. A ninety-two-year-old Lillian Gish plays Alan's mother, and Lois Chiles and Bob Hoskins join the supporting cast. In general, I find this genre a little too over-the-top in the backstage "drama", and even though I love Michael Caine, this movie didn't really break the mold. But there are some pretty funny scenes, and if you don't take it too seriously, it can be fun with a bunch of your friends and a bowl of popcorn.
Ah, The Fruits Ofl Lbertous Victory
videorama-759-85939123 August 2018
This and others will feel this too, not just me, that this colorful entry, doesn't rise up to the rest of Alda's works. If you're involved in any facet of the film industry, even a budding new screenwriter, you'll identify with this film. What SL manages to do, is be so darn bloody entertaining, in a good way, with a lot of good performances by many, none more than the late Gish, while I really liked Caine in this as a narcissistic, womanizing lead and hopeless leadr, and again, one who likes to drink, while Alda is just Alda, again. He plays a English lit teacher, who's just written a book on the American Revolution, which is gonna be transpired to a decent sort film, he can be proud of, via a script, but that's where the trouble first starts, in the name of loud zesty scriptwriter, Hoskins who's instead written, like a sex farce. This really gets Alda irked, but Hoskins becomes an ally and the two try to see they can slowly adjust it, to what he wants, under the uncaring and greedy eyes of the film's director (the ever reliable, Rubinek, typecast). Alda has a beautiful girlfriend, and of course, he falls for actress in the story, Pfeiffer, who pretty much resembles, I gather what she would be in real life, regarding the serious craft of the acting world. Gish just steals every scene, obsessing over an old flame, he implores Alda to track down, but of course, he has other worries. I'll never get the opening theme out of my head. Again, if involved in any facet of the film industry, you'll find this film a blast. One scene, at it's end, even has an actor engaged in a perpetual kiss, fare welling an extra. This film is never dull, and manages to be colorfully entertaining all through. Actually writing this review, has me wanting to videe it again. Though it's not without flaws, and doesn't fully rise, to the standard
anticipated, what could of been, SL not the less, just boils down to such a enjoyably entertaining sit down movie, which kind of disappointingly, shares the same song to Outrageous Fortune, the following year. The film shows, what can be achieved, about righting your disapproval, and the fruits of liberty, when you reclaim your realization. Even Rubinek, whose character is such an ass of a director, tells Alda after he's tampered with it, "I'll just cut those scenes out later on". What was really inspiring was when the extras, rallied with Alda, to right one part.
See Alan Alda's pride goeth before his fall
MBunge16 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
If you've ever wondered how Alan Alda went from being one of the most popular figures in American entertainment after M.A.S.H to being an aging character actor playing small parts in other people's movies, Sweet Liberty is the reason. This thing is so appalling, I'm surprised it only crippled his career and didn't cause him to be retroactively expelled from the space-time continuum.
This movie tries to be about 8 different things and it sucks hard at all of them. It's about history professor Michael Burgess (Alan Alda) and his weird relationship with his girlfriend, Gretchen Carlsen (Lise Hilboldt). He desperately wants them to move in together and just as desperately doesn't want to get married. She doesn't want to get married or live together, just keep banging him. It's about Michael's even weirder relationship with his crazy mother (Lillian Gish), who sleeps on her own sofa and demands to be reunited with an old boyfriend she hasn't seen in decades. It's about Michael's fights with movie director Bo Hodges (Saul Rubink), who's comes to town to make a movie out of Michael's book on the American revolution. Saul wants to make it into a teenager-pleasing piece of crap that's all about defying authority, blowing stuff and people getting naked. Michael wants it to be historically accurate with everyone wearing the right kind of hat.
Sweet Liberty is also about Michael's relationship with the movie's lead actress, Faith Healy (Michelle Pfeiffer). You see, Gretchen conveniently breaks up with him right before the movie starts production and Michael falls in love with the character Faith is portraying. Michael appears to be some sort of idiot savant, capable of writing a successful book but incapable of recognizing when an actress is acting. He also has to worry about the movie's lead actor, Elliot James (Michael Caine), who's like an overgrown child who only cares about fencing, driving recklessly and sleeping with as many women as possible. Helping Michael navigate the minefield of the movie's production screenwriter Stanley Gould (Bob Hoskins), who wrote the script based on Michael's book even though Stanley acts more like a Catskills comedian or a vaudevillian stage comic than a writer.
The film also wastes time on Elliot's adulterous affair with a local woman and a feud between the stuntmen working on the movie and the local American Revolution re-enactors who've been hired on as extras.
Now, if any of the things I've just described seem even vaguely interesting, I apologize for misleading you. Sweet Liberty isn't funny, it isn't clever, it isn't engaging or enjoyable on any level. I t is sad and pathetic to watch Hollywood legend Lillian Gish lamely attempt to ham her way through a "wacky" old lady role that couldn't have been more poorly written if it had been done by a 5 year old orphan. Lise Hilboldt moronically grins her way through every scene, no matter the context, like she was heavily medicated for the entire production. Alda's direction is incompetent and his script is a jangled mess.
Sweet Liberty is proof positive that there had to have been a lot of extremely talented people working on M.A.S.H. because despite his star status, it's clear that Alda couldn't have had much to do with the show's success.
This movie tries to be about 8 different things and it sucks hard at all of them. It's about history professor Michael Burgess (Alan Alda) and his weird relationship with his girlfriend, Gretchen Carlsen (Lise Hilboldt). He desperately wants them to move in together and just as desperately doesn't want to get married. She doesn't want to get married or live together, just keep banging him. It's about Michael's even weirder relationship with his crazy mother (Lillian Gish), who sleeps on her own sofa and demands to be reunited with an old boyfriend she hasn't seen in decades. It's about Michael's fights with movie director Bo Hodges (Saul Rubink), who's comes to town to make a movie out of Michael's book on the American revolution. Saul wants to make it into a teenager-pleasing piece of crap that's all about defying authority, blowing stuff and people getting naked. Michael wants it to be historically accurate with everyone wearing the right kind of hat.
Sweet Liberty is also about Michael's relationship with the movie's lead actress, Faith Healy (Michelle Pfeiffer). You see, Gretchen conveniently breaks up with him right before the movie starts production and Michael falls in love with the character Faith is portraying. Michael appears to be some sort of idiot savant, capable of writing a successful book but incapable of recognizing when an actress is acting. He also has to worry about the movie's lead actor, Elliot James (Michael Caine), who's like an overgrown child who only cares about fencing, driving recklessly and sleeping with as many women as possible. Helping Michael navigate the minefield of the movie's production screenwriter Stanley Gould (Bob Hoskins), who wrote the script based on Michael's book even though Stanley acts more like a Catskills comedian or a vaudevillian stage comic than a writer.
The film also wastes time on Elliot's adulterous affair with a local woman and a feud between the stuntmen working on the movie and the local American Revolution re-enactors who've been hired on as extras.
Now, if any of the things I've just described seem even vaguely interesting, I apologize for misleading you. Sweet Liberty isn't funny, it isn't clever, it isn't engaging or enjoyable on any level. I t is sad and pathetic to watch Hollywood legend Lillian Gish lamely attempt to ham her way through a "wacky" old lady role that couldn't have been more poorly written if it had been done by a 5 year old orphan. Lise Hilboldt moronically grins her way through every scene, no matter the context, like she was heavily medicated for the entire production. Alda's direction is incompetent and his script is a jangled mess.
Sweet Liberty is proof positive that there had to have been a lot of extremely talented people working on M.A.S.H. because despite his star status, it's clear that Alda couldn't have had much to do with the show's success.
mild satire
SnoopyStyle9 June 2021
Michael Burgess (Alan Alda) is a simple college history professor. He had written a serious Pulitzer winning book about the American Revolution which is being turned into a movie. The production has come to town and everybody is excited. He is shocked when the scriptwriter (Bob Hoskins) tells him that his book has been turned into a bad comedy. The director (Saul Rubinek) does not care. Elliott James (Michael Caine) and Faith Healy (Michelle Pfeiffer) are the lead actors in the movie within the movie. This also stars silent film legend Lillian Gish.
Alan Alda stars, writes, and directs this satire of a Hollywood movie production. It's mildly humorous. It tackles a satire-rich environment but pulls its punches when it should be going for the throat. The movie starts off right with good turns from Hoskins and Rubinek on the consultation. After that, the only one truly going for it is Michael Caine. His sword fighting is the most memorable part of the movie. In the end, the movie doesn't have enough comedic power to deliver the knockout punch of a great satire.
Alan Alda stars, writes, and directs this satire of a Hollywood movie production. It's mildly humorous. It tackles a satire-rich environment but pulls its punches when it should be going for the throat. The movie starts off right with good turns from Hoskins and Rubinek on the consultation. After that, the only one truly going for it is Michael Caine. His sword fighting is the most memorable part of the movie. In the end, the movie doesn't have enough comedic power to deliver the knockout punch of a great satire.
Fun
dbborroughs2 July 2004
I like this very silly movie about the making of a movie set during the Revolutionary War. History takes a back seat to the backstage madness as film crew invades a small town in the American South... ...except that this film was filmed on Long Island. Living on the Island I get great joy watching all the technical gaffes in the film, only the lead characters cars have non-New York license plates, a Long Island Railway Train goes by in the background and on it goes. You don't have to have sharp eyes to see the errors, they are glaring if you know that they are there. They don't take away from the fun, they add to it since as Alan Alda's character quickly finds out, there is nothing real about making movies.
The cast is great across the board, with everyone seeming to have such a good time its infectious.
See this movie, its just a lot of fun.
The cast is great across the board, with everyone seeming to have such a good time its infectious.
See this movie, its just a lot of fun.
Slight, good-natured and sometimes amusing comedy from Alan Alda
fredrikgunerius30 November 2023
Alan Alda gives the film industry a mild ransacking in this slight and horribly scored metafilm comedy. As always, Alda's characters are good-natured and often amusing, embodying Alda's sometimes keen-eyed, sometimes bland observations. But despite a potentially original concept and angle, as well as Alda's familiarly enjoyable atmosphere, the film never is able to rise out of conventionality, leaving it mostly up to the actors to charm their way out of otherwise unremarkable situations. In addition to Alda himself, the star-studded cast includes Michael Caine, Bob Hoskins, Michelle Pfeiffer and Lillian Gish, in her penultimate screen appearance.
Alda does Altman?
drosse6717 August 2001
The "making of a Big Hollywood Movie" is certainly not a new idea for a comedy. Over the years there have been many movies like this--most recently David Mamet's "State and Main." What Alan Alda did for this movie is playfully comment on the state of the blockbuster (six years before Robert Altman's "The Player"). In 1986, the "blockbuster movie" was in its early stages. This film originally came out around the same time as Top Gun--case in point. Saul Rubinek plays the obnoxious Hollywood director (what? An obnoxious director?) who turns Alda's historical, and serious, book about the American Revolution into a romantic comedy, complete with big stars who take their clothes off. What makes this movie different from Alda's other films is that there are no serious undertones. Everyone is having a great time, and it shows. Michelle Pfeiffer, in one of her first starring roles, has rarely been funnier. Michael Caine struts his best comic stuff. And Bob Hoskins--how can you go wrong? The film has an obvious mid '80s feel (the music is terrible), and Alda's direction seems more suited for television, but this is still an enjoyable movie, less successful and acidic in its approach to Hollywood and its stars and blockbusters (compared to Sunset Blvd., The StuntMan, and of course The Player) but still worth watching.
funnyboner
willrams29 April 2003
I just saw this on AMC the other day, and thought it was extremely funny! Michael, played by AlanAlda has written an American History which was bought by a Hollywood studio and turned into a movie; but the movie is entirely screwed up; or the battle scenes were screwed up; beautiful Michelle Pffeifer plays the girl friend; Michael Caine steals the show with his pomp and egotism; Lillian Gish plays mom of Alda; and all have a riotous time. It was good to see Gish again; I almost forgot who she was! Not much sense to this but it was fun
Alan Alda tries his hand at writing, directing AND starring in the same film!
planktonrules23 April 2021
"Sweet Liberty" is quite a surprise, as Alan Alda wrote, directed and stars in this film...something he also did with "Betsy's Wedding". And, I was actually impressed with all of the roles he took on in this most unusual film.
The story is set in some small town where Professor Burgess is a history teacher. But the entire town, as well as Burgess' life, are thrown into a dither when a movie crew arrives to film a movie based on one of Burgess' books. During the process of making the film, Burgess learns a lot about the filmmaking business....most of which is disappointing to say the least. The biggest disappointment is that the screenwriter (Bob Hoskins) has completely butchered his Revolutionary War story....and Burgess spends much of the film working to make sure the film is as good and historically accurate as possible...given that many of the folks making the picture are bonkers and couldn't care less about realism!
This is a movie where the plot seems less important than the characters and dialog...which I don't think is a bad thing at all. Character driven stories are often delightful...and Alda's dialog and characters truly are delightful. In fact, it makes me feel sad that he didn't write more films. It also makes you wonder how much of the weirdness of the story represents the real eccentricities of the filmmakers and actors...especially Michael Caine's incredibly strange and semi-unhinged character! Overall, a lot of fun and a film which really is unique and memorable.
The story is set in some small town where Professor Burgess is a history teacher. But the entire town, as well as Burgess' life, are thrown into a dither when a movie crew arrives to film a movie based on one of Burgess' books. During the process of making the film, Burgess learns a lot about the filmmaking business....most of which is disappointing to say the least. The biggest disappointment is that the screenwriter (Bob Hoskins) has completely butchered his Revolutionary War story....and Burgess spends much of the film working to make sure the film is as good and historically accurate as possible...given that many of the folks making the picture are bonkers and couldn't care less about realism!
This is a movie where the plot seems less important than the characters and dialog...which I don't think is a bad thing at all. Character driven stories are often delightful...and Alda's dialog and characters truly are delightful. In fact, it makes me feel sad that he didn't write more films. It also makes you wonder how much of the weirdness of the story represents the real eccentricities of the filmmakers and actors...especially Michael Caine's incredibly strange and semi-unhinged character! Overall, a lot of fun and a film which really is unique and memorable.
One of The Best Movies about The Irony Between Truth & Fiction !
elshikh425 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the funniest movies that utilized the irony between truth and fiction through the eternal clash between history and art; to present an enjoyable comedy which mocks at both!
Look at the movie's point of view out of its own cosmos: history is unknown, since nobody reads in the image's age. Cinema is just a lie to make a thrilling time, whether history is damaged or not; to create the artistic "lying" version of it. Movie stars are sick people after that creative lying sneaked into them, from their work to their daily behaviors, to become whether unfaithful to their wives (Michael Caine), or at least schizophrenic (Michelle Pefiffer). The director is a cat's-paw in the hands of a giant studio that wants nothing but money and down with the credibility. So, the writer becomes the last man standing, or the last honorable worrier for the truth; which turns him into the enemy. Consequently, he finds that the only heroic solution is to deal randomly and impudently, like all the others, to achieve just one thing he believes in, by the way he exactly wants. To grow eventually - despite all of his pure idealistic principles - into one of the liars, and a shield in the machine of cinema, not history, as the last shot reveals to us sarcastically; where (Alan Alda) listens to the TV reporter and her question about "the secret of his movie's success" to find no answer but smiling with vanity, or as a ridicule of everything!
This movie is hilarious, however so believable. The performance was flawless. In fact, the whole cast was great to an extent where you got to feel how this was not acting at all. The comedy was ironic and thoughtful in the same time, because of that top notch script by (Alan Alda) which was genius with some talented details: The short storyline of the old mother and her needing of lying to be happy, the big climax to achieve one victory by "the historical truth" side, and to embody the real conflict of the movie through a wonderful droll battle, not to mention small moments but so rich; like the scene of (Michael Caine) and his story about meeting (Winston Churchill); it could say a lot about the effect of WW2 on a character as disordered as his, however leaving the story as it is, true or false, is one wicked wink to us about the meaning of the movie, and its main irony.
Finally, did (Alda) mean that illusion is the Sweet Liberty from all the annoying facts that we live? Or that truth nowadays is the Sweet Liberty from all the lies that we sunk under them? Whatever the answer is, asking the question proves how (Alda) is an intelligent movie-maker, and how he managed to make profound and entertaining comedy. Actually, it's wholly rare plus interesting for me as a scriptwriter myself and a previous student of history too.
Look at the movie's point of view out of its own cosmos: history is unknown, since nobody reads in the image's age. Cinema is just a lie to make a thrilling time, whether history is damaged or not; to create the artistic "lying" version of it. Movie stars are sick people after that creative lying sneaked into them, from their work to their daily behaviors, to become whether unfaithful to their wives (Michael Caine), or at least schizophrenic (Michelle Pefiffer). The director is a cat's-paw in the hands of a giant studio that wants nothing but money and down with the credibility. So, the writer becomes the last man standing, or the last honorable worrier for the truth; which turns him into the enemy. Consequently, he finds that the only heroic solution is to deal randomly and impudently, like all the others, to achieve just one thing he believes in, by the way he exactly wants. To grow eventually - despite all of his pure idealistic principles - into one of the liars, and a shield in the machine of cinema, not history, as the last shot reveals to us sarcastically; where (Alan Alda) listens to the TV reporter and her question about "the secret of his movie's success" to find no answer but smiling with vanity, or as a ridicule of everything!
This movie is hilarious, however so believable. The performance was flawless. In fact, the whole cast was great to an extent where you got to feel how this was not acting at all. The comedy was ironic and thoughtful in the same time, because of that top notch script by (Alan Alda) which was genius with some talented details: The short storyline of the old mother and her needing of lying to be happy, the big climax to achieve one victory by "the historical truth" side, and to embody the real conflict of the movie through a wonderful droll battle, not to mention small moments but so rich; like the scene of (Michael Caine) and his story about meeting (Winston Churchill); it could say a lot about the effect of WW2 on a character as disordered as his, however leaving the story as it is, true or false, is one wicked wink to us about the meaning of the movie, and its main irony.
Finally, did (Alda) mean that illusion is the Sweet Liberty from all the annoying facts that we live? Or that truth nowadays is the Sweet Liberty from all the lies that we sunk under them? Whatever the answer is, asking the question proves how (Alda) is an intelligent movie-maker, and how he managed to make profound and entertaining comedy. Actually, it's wholly rare plus interesting for me as a scriptwriter myself and a previous student of history too.
A classic feel-good film
johnrp-13 September 2004
First of all, let me say that Michael Caine is pure genius in this film. His portrayal of a screen-idol that "makes the girls wet their pants" is perfect!
Michelle Pfeiffer's part is a bit 2-dimensional, but she does have her moments. Even Alan Alda is surprisingly good (gee, I had never realized before that he could act!).
Anyway, the film is very light-hearted and easy on the mind. Some good laughs, some nice scenes, etc.
I'd recommend renting this, making a nice disgustingly buttered tub of popcorn, a nice big glass of sugared soda ... sit back and enjoy!
Michelle Pfeiffer's part is a bit 2-dimensional, but she does have her moments. Even Alan Alda is surprisingly good (gee, I had never realized before that he could act!).
Anyway, the film is very light-hearted and easy on the mind. Some good laughs, some nice scenes, etc.
I'd recommend renting this, making a nice disgustingly buttered tub of popcorn, a nice big glass of sugared soda ... sit back and enjoy!
The First American Film to discuss the American Revolution in the South
theowinthrop10 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
As a follow-up to his wonderful FOUR SEASONS, Alan Alda wrote, directed, and starred in SWEET LIBERTY - a film that explores the way movies unmake books and historical accuracy, and film productions on location upset local populations. It's a good follow-up film, but not as good as FOUR SEASONS because that film had some serious underpinnings about friendship and aging at it's center.
In SWEET LIBERTY Alda plays Michael Burgess, who lives is a southern college town with his mother Cecilia (Lillian Gish). He is a professor of history, who has just written a carefully researched best seller about the events in the region from 1779 to 1781 when the British under Cornwallis invaded Georgia and the Carolinas in the American Revolution. I have mentioned this somewhat forgotten aspect of the Revolution in other reviews on this board, and how Cornwallis' actually had a clever scheme that could have worked (there were far more loyal Tories among the population there than further North), but how through the jealousy and foot dragging of Sir Henry Clinton (Cornwallis' superior) the scheme slowly unraveled. Forced by the Americans under Nathaniel Greene into a series of "phyrric" victories, wherein he lost more men than the battles were worth, Cornwallis decided to fight his way to Virginia and to have Clinton pick up his men there. This led to his defeat at Yorktown. Burgess's book deals with the diary of a local woman who witnesses these events. It also deals with her having a love affair with Cornwallis' "Green Dragoon", the notoriously deadly Sir Banastre Tarleton.
Tarleton has appeared under a different name in Mel Gibson's controversial THE PATRIOT, as the cavalry leader who did not mince words with the rebels. He exterminated them. The most notorious incident was when he ordered the massacre of rebels who had been captured at the Wraxhall River. But this was 1780 so war crimes trials were never heard of, and General Tarleton lived to die in his bed in 1833. By the way - Tarleton never ordered burning alive civilians in a church to set an example (that was a Gibson invention). Particularly an Anglican Church. King George III, as head of the Anglican Church (and a serious believer in the religious rights of his flock) would probably have ordered Tarleton's arrest and execution for such an act.
Burgess sells the rights to his book to a film company, and soon realizes the hurricane he has released on his sleepy community. Burgess finds that he is working on the screenplay with Mr. Stanley Gould (Bob Hoskins), who loves the book - but is constantly changing it to fit film consumers attention spans. The director of the film is little better than a presumptive kid named Bo Hodges (Saul Rubinek), who has a ludicrous theory of what people want to see (it includes mayhem, buildings being blown up, and people who are naked). Burgess has a close understanding with a fellow teacher named Gretchen Calsen (Lisa Hilboldt), which may lead to marriage. But both find themselves enthralled by the film leads, Elliot James (Michael Caine) and Faith Healy (Michelle Phifer). Both are temperamental egotists, but they can lay on the charm to improve their roles or enjoy themselves. Soon Burgess finds himself approving changes in the script that benefit Healy (which leads to counter improvements for the insistent James).
On top of all this Burgess has problems with his mother, a kindly woman who is partly insane. This also leads to him trying to resolve an issue regarding her past and a love affair she claims she had.
The changes range from the ludicrous to the insulting. Remember that Tarleton was known as the "Green Dragoon". A wealthy man, he dressed his crack cavalry regiment in green outfits, not in red. Hodges has James wear the traditional red uniform - American audiences expect "red coats". The culmination of the film is the so-called turning point in the war in the south, the American victory over Tarleton at the battle of the Cowpens (a bit of farmland - the victor was General Daniel Morgan, and it has been called the best tactical victory of the war). But Hodges wants to make it comic, with the Americans running around stupidly as the British bombard them. This, and a nasty confrontation between the film extras and the locals sets Alda up for leading his own revolution, and showing the film people just where to get off.
SWEET LIBERTY works as a comedy, and is worth viewing. Besides Alda's growing frustration at the extremes of movie making, Hoskins friendly but ruthless script reworking, and Gish's comic insanity, and the obnoxious Rubinek, Caine does wonders showing ego and charm in it's turn (see his rendition of "Knees Up Father Brown" when going out), and Michelle Phyfer's twisting Alda around her finger. It is certainly a fine film comedy.
In SWEET LIBERTY Alda plays Michael Burgess, who lives is a southern college town with his mother Cecilia (Lillian Gish). He is a professor of history, who has just written a carefully researched best seller about the events in the region from 1779 to 1781 when the British under Cornwallis invaded Georgia and the Carolinas in the American Revolution. I have mentioned this somewhat forgotten aspect of the Revolution in other reviews on this board, and how Cornwallis' actually had a clever scheme that could have worked (there were far more loyal Tories among the population there than further North), but how through the jealousy and foot dragging of Sir Henry Clinton (Cornwallis' superior) the scheme slowly unraveled. Forced by the Americans under Nathaniel Greene into a series of "phyrric" victories, wherein he lost more men than the battles were worth, Cornwallis decided to fight his way to Virginia and to have Clinton pick up his men there. This led to his defeat at Yorktown. Burgess's book deals with the diary of a local woman who witnesses these events. It also deals with her having a love affair with Cornwallis' "Green Dragoon", the notoriously deadly Sir Banastre Tarleton.
Tarleton has appeared under a different name in Mel Gibson's controversial THE PATRIOT, as the cavalry leader who did not mince words with the rebels. He exterminated them. The most notorious incident was when he ordered the massacre of rebels who had been captured at the Wraxhall River. But this was 1780 so war crimes trials were never heard of, and General Tarleton lived to die in his bed in 1833. By the way - Tarleton never ordered burning alive civilians in a church to set an example (that was a Gibson invention). Particularly an Anglican Church. King George III, as head of the Anglican Church (and a serious believer in the religious rights of his flock) would probably have ordered Tarleton's arrest and execution for such an act.
Burgess sells the rights to his book to a film company, and soon realizes the hurricane he has released on his sleepy community. Burgess finds that he is working on the screenplay with Mr. Stanley Gould (Bob Hoskins), who loves the book - but is constantly changing it to fit film consumers attention spans. The director of the film is little better than a presumptive kid named Bo Hodges (Saul Rubinek), who has a ludicrous theory of what people want to see (it includes mayhem, buildings being blown up, and people who are naked). Burgess has a close understanding with a fellow teacher named Gretchen Calsen (Lisa Hilboldt), which may lead to marriage. But both find themselves enthralled by the film leads, Elliot James (Michael Caine) and Faith Healy (Michelle Phifer). Both are temperamental egotists, but they can lay on the charm to improve their roles or enjoy themselves. Soon Burgess finds himself approving changes in the script that benefit Healy (which leads to counter improvements for the insistent James).
On top of all this Burgess has problems with his mother, a kindly woman who is partly insane. This also leads to him trying to resolve an issue regarding her past and a love affair she claims she had.
The changes range from the ludicrous to the insulting. Remember that Tarleton was known as the "Green Dragoon". A wealthy man, he dressed his crack cavalry regiment in green outfits, not in red. Hodges has James wear the traditional red uniform - American audiences expect "red coats". The culmination of the film is the so-called turning point in the war in the south, the American victory over Tarleton at the battle of the Cowpens (a bit of farmland - the victor was General Daniel Morgan, and it has been called the best tactical victory of the war). But Hodges wants to make it comic, with the Americans running around stupidly as the British bombard them. This, and a nasty confrontation between the film extras and the locals sets Alda up for leading his own revolution, and showing the film people just where to get off.
SWEET LIBERTY works as a comedy, and is worth viewing. Besides Alda's growing frustration at the extremes of movie making, Hoskins friendly but ruthless script reworking, and Gish's comic insanity, and the obnoxious Rubinek, Caine does wonders showing ego and charm in it's turn (see his rendition of "Knees Up Father Brown" when going out), and Michelle Phyfer's twisting Alda around her finger. It is certainly a fine film comedy.
Alda's wuss character ruined the film for me (SPOILERS)
tomhr9 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
He's pushed around by his dotty mother, by his alleged girlfriend Gretchen, by the screenwriter Stanley, the director Bo, and by the leading man played by Michael Caine. There isn't one time Alda's character stands up for himself and sticks to it. His scenes with Gretchen are 100 percent blab and 0 percent chemistry. At the end of the movie, after he has just learned that Gretchen had been sleeping with Michael Caine, she tells him that she's willing to marry him for eight months, "with an option for four more." Rather than telling her to get lost, he is overjoyed and hugs her.
The movie has sharp things to say about the Hollywood movie-making process. But that for me was overshadowed by my annoyance at Alda's character. Only twice in the movie does he grow a pair, but at the end of the story he is back to being a wimp again.
My girlfriend Carolyn has an opinion even harsher than I -- she rates "Sweet Liberty" even lower than _Mummy's Kiss_, a soft-porn film with Ed Woods-quality bad writing.
Score: 3 out of 10 from me; 1/10 from Carolyn.
The movie has sharp things to say about the Hollywood movie-making process. But that for me was overshadowed by my annoyance at Alda's character. Only twice in the movie does he grow a pair, but at the end of the story he is back to being a wimp again.
My girlfriend Carolyn has an opinion even harsher than I -- she rates "Sweet Liberty" even lower than _Mummy's Kiss_, a soft-porn film with Ed Woods-quality bad writing.
Score: 3 out of 10 from me; 1/10 from Carolyn.
Let freedom ring! (as long as the tune is entertainment)
lee_eisenberg5 June 2019
To the list of satires on Hollywood we can add Alan Alda's "Sweet Liberty". He plays a history professor whose novel about the Revolutionary War is getting filmed in his town. Except that because this is a Hollywood production, they've pretty much ignored his book, instead pandering to audiences' lowest and stupidest preferences! And sure enough, the people involved in the production make excessive demands every step of the way.
OK, so we could make the argument that this is sillier than the stuff for which Alda is usually known. I counter by saying that this is his own swipe at the studio system that dominates entertainment in the US. He grew up in the Hollywood system, so he probably saw it firsthand. My favorite scenes in the movie were the helicopter ride and the final battle scene. I suspect that they had fun filming the entire movie. This is exactly what patriotism should be!
Since Michael Caine and Michelle Pfeiffer co-star, I guess that means that Alfred got to meet the other Catwoman (if we identify people by their Batman roles).
OK, so we could make the argument that this is sillier than the stuff for which Alda is usually known. I counter by saying that this is his own swipe at the studio system that dominates entertainment in the US. He grew up in the Hollywood system, so he probably saw it firsthand. My favorite scenes in the movie were the helicopter ride and the final battle scene. I suspect that they had fun filming the entire movie. This is exactly what patriotism should be!
Since Michael Caine and Michelle Pfeiffer co-star, I guess that means that Alfred got to meet the other Catwoman (if we identify people by their Batman roles).
Fact, fantasy and Banastre Tarleton
£ynette28 January 2004
Alan Alda plays an historian who has written about an historical character. When his book is made into a film, the character he feels he knows so well is brought to life by an actress. The history he knows so well is translated into an "historical" film, with the fact gradually draining away. The film gently, lyrically plays on the interface between reality and fantasy.
An irony is that in "Sweet Liberty" Michael Caine plays an actor who plays a character based on Banastre Tarleton, a British commander of Tory troops in America during the Revolution. In 2000, the German director Roland Emmerich made a film called Patriot in which Jason Isaacs plays a character based on Banastre Tarleton. In the Emmerich film, the fact has drained away and the British commit atrocities more appropriate to Germans in the Second World War.
An irony is that in "Sweet Liberty" Michael Caine plays an actor who plays a character based on Banastre Tarleton, a British commander of Tory troops in America during the Revolution. In 2000, the German director Roland Emmerich made a film called Patriot in which Jason Isaacs plays a character based on Banastre Tarleton. In the Emmerich film, the fact has drained away and the British commit atrocities more appropriate to Germans in the Second World War.
SPOILER ALERT!!!
RobTimMor22 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I have seen this film several times and on the most recent viewing, I noticed a continuity goof. Alan Alda's character Michael Burgess reads the Hollywood-ized script that has "not been taken" from his book and is outraged at the changes and historical inaccuracies. He spends the entire movie trying to make things right again, even going so far as to sabotage the filming. But then at the end, Michael accosts the director Bo Hodges and blithely apologizes for what he's done. If Michael Burgess is so outraged all through the film, why does he suddenly recant and apologize for his actions at the very end? He seems to be indecisive.
This jolted me a little, but did not diminish my enjoyment of this otherwise fine film and its gentle comedy. It's well worth seeing.
This jolted me a little, but did not diminish my enjoyment of this otherwise fine film and its gentle comedy. It's well worth seeing.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
