Lovesusti
The Worst Film Ever
Supelice
Dreadfully Boring
Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Stephanie
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Ted McCarron
The only reason I'm giving this movie three stars is because it portrays an interesting historical topic. Donald Sutherland, Helen Mirren, and everyone involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves for propagandizing for the worst mass murderer in the history of the world. Mao Tse Tung holds the world's record for genocide, killing over 60 million people. Hitler, in contrast, comes in at third place. The number two spot goes to another Communist regime, the Soviet Union.The fact that much of this film was made in Red China with the full approval of Communist censors speaks volumes. Some IMDb reviewers have stated that what happened after Mao's conquest of China can't be held against their early struggle or that Mao's atrocities "were not evident in 1939." Yes they were! Communist theory itself advocates violating people's natural rights to buy, sell and own property while calling for violent class warfare. Mao's political mentors,Lenin and Stalin, had already murdered millions by the time Bethune went to China. Wikipedia.org reports that Mao himself killed over 186,000 people before Bethune came to China, while having horrible tortures committed against many Chinese, including cutting womens' breasts open and mutilating genitals. Would these reviewers have been so kind to a movie portraying Hitler in the 1920s positively because he hadn't killed anyone yet? You would never know any of this by watching the movie. The film shows a friendly, jovial Mao talking about tactics with Bethune. Communist soldiers are portrayed in positive light as principled idealists, while the Nationalist Chinese they were fighting are portrayed as brutes. Although this movie was principally propaganda for Chinese Communism, it was also propaganda for Communism in general, using Behtune's life as a tool towards that end. The Communists in the Spainish Civil War were portrayed as the good guys, and the theater scene where Bethune admitted to being a Red while the audience sang the International with clenched fists was naked Communist propaganda.If people want to watch the film out of interest of the subject, then I recommend they do so. But do it with the full knowledge of what the film is and what it deliberately leaves out.
zzmale
It is extremely easy to pass it as a political propaganda at first glance. However, it would extremely foolish to do so. What happened to Mao and his party was exactly like what ancient Romans had said: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, what happened to Mao and his party after the revolution cannot be used to mitigate what Chinese people accomplished under his leadership before the revolution. Denying past accomplishment of Mao and his party, as well as Chinese people and those great internationalists who helped China to fight Japanese fascists invaders would be as foolish as, and as racist as denying the existence of in USA simply because blacks in USA enjoy better living standards than blacks in Africa & Latin America.
peter-209
The life and times of Norman Bethune represent the stuff great epic movies are made of. Unfortunately, the creators of this film missed the opportunity and spoiled everything they could. The time line is unnecessarily disordered, psychology and camera unengaging, props are fake (e.g. brand new uniforms of the Chinese soldiers). I do not comment about the politics or ideology of the film, but as art, it is overwhelmingly disappointing.
phred22
Although I know nothing of the life of Dr. Norman Bethune, this biopic appears to be a credible history lesson. But not much more. Though the scenery is gorgeous and we get lots of opinions on our subject, plus writings in his journal, we never really get inside Bethune. This is because the director and the screenwriter seem to be men with banal vision and little imagination.The movie this film most reminds me of is Gandhi, whose faults it shares but Bethune does not have as powerful a cast. Acting is generally adequate but not much more than that. That the hero is a communist does not mean there couldn't have been a great story here. It does mean most American and Canadian audiences are not going to start watching wanting to see this man's greatness proven, the way they did for Gandhi.