Film Review: Everyman's War, 2010

I bought this on DVD and watched it today. I could pretty much tell, just from looking at the cover, that this belongs to the ever-growing Indie-WWII movie scene. The cover of my DVD isn't the same as the image above, which is both a better cover and has a better strap-line - 'one man's hope, one man's courage... everyman's war'.

Sadly some marketing schmucks, as so often happens with war-themed films, especially when being marketed in places other than their country of origin, have gotten hold of the design process, and designed a more generic montage, pictured below. And, rather bizarrely, they've substituted Churchill's 'never have so many...' Battle of Britain quote for the original tagline. Why does this sort of thing happen so often!?

My DVD sports this generic style cover.

After watching the film, I thought I'd check the Amazon UK reviews for it. One of the many very critical reviews there compared it unfavourably with Band of Brothers. But that's pretty dumb, in my opinion, seeing as Band of Brothers cost $125 million, whereas Everyman's War cost about $500,000 [1]. Or in other words less than half of one per cent the budget of the star-studded Spielberg/Hanks HBO blockbuster.

Everyman's War tells the story of a group of young men from various places and backgrounds in the U.S, who wind up in the same unit, eventually fighting in The Battle of The Bulge. Mostly we follow Don Smith, who's falling in love with a girl called Dorrine, just as he gets called up. An unfinished letter to her becomes his talisman of hope, keeping him going as the war gets ever grimmer.

Don Smith (Cole Carson) and Cpl. Sparks (Mike Prosser).

None of the actors are famous faces (none even have wiki entries), and the whole thing does have the feel of a movie made on a tight budget. The pacing of the narrative wouldn't pass muster on a Hollywood blockbuster. But it's actually done remarkably well, using appropriate locations, with the Germans speaking German, etc. And, quite frankly, I get sick of the formulaic way blockbusters are done. This sort of thing can't compete with the big bucks boys on stars, explosions and effects. But it can with a bit of refreshingly humble humanity. Something often notably lacking in star-driven movies.

The stories are all based on real people and real events, and the film had an unusual genesis: 'It started out as a short film and a labor of love, for my father's 85th birthday (he's 94 now) and quickly became a feature that I shot over a year.' [2] It's a movie about ordinary men in war. And a heartfelt one at that. I found it engaging and moving. And whilst it's not as 'epic', production wise, as for example the old 1960s Battle Of The Bulge film, in many ways it's a lot more realistic. [3]

Not an out and out classic, perhaps. But certainly worth watching. 

Thad Smith directing.

---

NOTES:

[1] I got in touch with director Thad Smith and asked what the budget was.

[2] Quoting from Thad Smith's email reply to my inquiry about the budget.

[2] At one point there's a very interesting scene with a prisoner being rescued from abuse by Don Smith. I won't say more here, as I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it. However, it is worth noting that the German's who fought the 94th Infantry, Smith's unit, nicknamed them 'Roosevelt's Butchers'.

Shoulder patch of the 94th Infantry Division.

Film Review: Fortress of War, 2010

Yes, this Russian WWII film is rather chest-beatingly propagandistic, but it remains excellent, nonetheless. Whilst there's very much an ensemble cast, who, by and large, act extremely well, the story is presented as if being recalled by one of the film's younger protagonists, in later life.

At the start of the film, Sasha (Alexei Kopashov) is playing in the band...

... but the titular fortress is soon under attack.

The action is set in Brest Litovsk, which is overrun and besieged by the invading German Army. It's interesting to see how post-Communist Russia renders her own history. But even simply looked at as an action-packed war film, Fortress Of War stands strongly on its own merits, for all that the true history of such events might be rather harder to discern through the fog of war.

Fierce had-to-hand combat rages in the fortress.

Andrey Merzlikin, as Kizhavetov, bloodied but unbowed.

There are several attempts to break out.

Fomin (Pavel Derevyenko), also bloodied, also unbowed.

It's from that international school of war films, of which there seem to be an almost neverending supply, that revels in the dirt and blood of conflict. There are a good number of actors in this with terrific faces: all the male leads have a kind of rugged taciturn charisma, and physiognomies to match. And there's one guy (I couldn't work out who the actor was) who's a kind of man-mountain, a sort of physical embodiment of the Fortress and Russian resistance!

The Soviets had far more women involved in their WWII war effort than most belligerents, and yet the war still seems, as presented here, resolutely male. What the hapless women and children - the civilians who wind up hiding anywhere they can, as food, water and hope run out - think of their 'comrades' heroic self-sacrifice, which involves them all in a more communal sacrifice, is not something this film really addresses. 

Civilians surrender and exit the beleaguered citadel.

Wide eyed with trauma, and still rather beautiful.

Certainly war is seen to be hell. But it's a hell we seem, both literally historically, and in terms of movie appetite, to have an insatiable taste for. This is gritty, relentless, violent, and successfully emotionally manipulative... I loved it!