Film Review: 1917, 2019

Finally got around to watching this film, having originally intended to do so, pretty much, from when it first came out, some time last year. But despite seeing trailers at the pictures that whetted the appetite, we never actually got round to it. At the time of writing this, however, we'd started out watching The Devil's Own, with Brad Pitt and Harrison Fjord, on Amazon Prime. But didn't get along with that at all.

1917 was much more enjoyable and entertaining. Far from perfect, but at least engaging enough we watched it all, and mercifully nowhere near as annoying as Americans getting dewy-eyed about all things Oirish, even 'Da Troubles'. 

Lance Corporals Tom and Will set out through the wire. [1]

I won't synopsise the plot beyond the barest sketch: two men are sent to take a message across no man's land to a nearby unit, cancelling the latter's planned attack, scheduled for 6am the following day, which intelligence suggests is a trap. One of the two lance-corporals given this fool's errand has an older brother who's an officer in the potentially doomed attacking force, as extra motivation.

It's a strange movie, mixing modern views on The Great War - over representing certain ethnic groups ahistorically, and foisting modern values on to characters (and ignoring class hierarchies, etc.) in a not entirely convincing manner - with an obvious desire to render aspects of WWI believably. 

Van Halen's 'Jump' comes to mind ... 'Go ahead, and  Jump!' [2]

Cameos from a number of famous British luvvies include brief turns from Colin Firth, Mark Strong and Benedictus Cucumberpatch, whose performances sit a little oddly in contrast with the two main protagonists, who are - to me at least - unknown. I found them, George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman, rather lacking in charisma, which lessened any emotional investment.

During the longish trip through no-man's land they prattle away in a manner that I found pretty odd, for two soldiers in fear of their lives in potentially enemy occupied territory. This is followed by an aerial-combat interlude that seems both a bit far-fetched in its ultimate outcome and somewhat heavy-handed. Given what the movie depicts, I found it all strangely flat and uninvolving. I still enjoyed it enough to watch the whole thing. But it's far from being a classic.

Mark Strong, one of the better known faces in the cast. [3]

Reading a bit about it online after seeing it, I discovered that there was something of a fuss being made over the entire film being shot in such a way that it was, or appeared to be, just two continuous takes. I have to say I didn't notice this at all. Nor was the film as a whole particularly groundbreaking in any way, technically or otherwise. At least not in ways that I found notable. Indeed, whenever I became aware of the artifice of the movie, it was usually mostly for looking or sounding somewhat derivative, as is so much modern culture. Or else seeming a bit contrived, such as the aeroplane crash, or the hand-to-hand fight in a barn/warehouse.

Hitchcock is famed for the kind of directorial sleights of hand some seem to be lauding 1917 for, and when he does it - as overly stylised as it very often is (as in the movie Rope, for example) - it's both noticeable, impressive and very beguiling. Here it's more workmanlike, to my mind. And occasionally the balance tips rather too much towards form over content, as during the 'lit by flares' townscape sequence.

Very visually striking... seductively so, even? [4]

All in all, I'd say this is a rather odd and unbalanced film. One minute looking like a shoestring buddy movie - esp. during one segment of their amiably chatty cross-country ramble though no-man's land -  the next like a military epic. And, whilst eminently watchable, it's both patchy and a bit incoherent. And it certainly overlays an overly heavy dose of 'our times/views' over the historic elements, rather weakening its appeal for me.

Learning a bit about the story's roots in Sam Mendes grandfather's WWI experiences was interesting. But, alas, the film itself didn't really get any of that personal aspect across, for me. So, in conclusion... worth watching, perhaps. But I'm certainly not raving about it! And I'm kind of glad we didn't fork out the exorbitant sums cinemas charge these days to see it.

---

NOTES:

[1] One of the best things about this film are the mise-en-scene; this one, as they go across no man's land, is very well realised, visually.

[2] At least it does for me. But there are reasons: Eddie Van Halen, the guitarist, recently passed away, and I've been studying Jump and other Van Halen songs with many of my drum pupils since then, in tribute. Eddie's brother Alex Van Halen is/was their drummer, and a very, very good one. A great camera angle, for this shot, by the way. Technically it's a well-made movie.

[3] Sadly not even Strong, Firth or Cucumber-patch can save this film from its own 3rd Millenium failings, chief of which is to treat history to PC Bowdlerisation, and foist local/contemporary sensibilities on other times and places. Indeed, their cult of personality film-star presence might even contribute to such problems, as good as they undeniably are as actors. The particular scene in which Strong's character first appears is, to me, a pretty bizarre and implausible one. Yet it's essential in the overall development of the film.

[4] But looking more like a scene from a pop video than real WWI. The whole scene, despite the mud and ruins, is way too pristine. Where's all the detritus of war: materiel, clothes, dead bodies, etc?

Film Review: Enemy at the Gates, 2001

The first time I watched this I quite enjoyed it. The second time, I couldn't even finish it. It irritated the feck out of me! My major issue with it is the Hollywood himbos/bimbos casting: Jude Law, Joe Fiennes and Rachel Weisz are all just too g'damn pretty for Russian proles. And the whole thing winds up being, despite the dirtiness and blitzed settings, too clean and soft.

The production is pretty impressive, and I love war movies set on the Ostfront, just for their subject alone. They have to annoy me quite badly, as this has wound up doing, to put me off multiple viewings. Ed Harris is better and more believable as ruggedly Aryan German sniper, Major König. And there are several cameos from actors I sometimes dig, like Ron Perlman and Bob Hoskins. But neither shines here.

Pretty boys, er... I mean comrades... at war.

The real Vasili Zaitsev.

I think what's worst about this film is the foisting onto it of the whole romantic schtick, with the love triangle 'twixt peasant sharpshooter Vasily Zaytsev (Law), bespectacled intellectual Commisar Danilov (Fiennes) and Tania Chernova* (Weisz). It kind of spoils a film that perhaps should've concentrated on the military side of things, as Shaving Ryan's Privates did. It's a real pity, as there are a number of great scenes/set-pieces. On that topic, this link is interesting, as it shows a few images pertinent to the production side.

* I like it better that way... (titter)

The basic setting of this movie, amidst the ruins of the siege of Stalingrad, and how we meet Law's Zaytsev character (based, albeit very loosely, on a real Red Army sniper), and the duelling snipers element, are all good. But the movie fails to deliver on its grittier promises, descending into a schmaltzy romance, and seriously turning me off. Don't get me wrong; I find Weisz attractive, just not in this context. 

I'll probably give it another try some time. But the last viewing put me of so strongly I don't see it being any time soon. Very disappointing.

Action man Ed Harris... now that's better!

Amazingly Harris like 1/6 action 'doll' of Major König!

Film Review: Churchill, 2015

A friend loaned us this DVD (thanks Pat!), which we watched this evening. About 15 minutes into it I was perplexed. About 30 minutes in I was annoyed. By the end, I was mostly just bemused. The first thing was that we both - Teresa (my wife) and I - remarked how much better Gary Oldman was in Darkest Hour, (a much better film).

I also found myself comparing it with Ike, in which Tom Selleck portrays Eisenhower over the same period - the days running up to D-Day - a film that shares some commonalities in terms of scale of production. Both films were, in Hollywood terms, low-budget affairs. But whereas Selleck's movie, if not entirely devoid of factual mistakes, gets the basic tenor spot on, Churchill is a bizarre ahistorical travesty.

Historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts makes a number of acerbic observations in a review of the film entitled Fake History in Churchill, starring Brian Cox, describing the latter's portrayal as "a depiction that Dr. Goebbels would have been delighted with"! Roberts lays the blame squarely at the feet of Alex von Tunzelmann, who wrote the script/screenplay.

With rather staggering irony, von Tunzelmann authored a column for the Guardian for a period, Reel History, whose subject is the relationship cinema has with historical truth! One has to wonder how and why someone who regularly dissects films to see how accurate they are could then go and commit such blatant calumny. Especially at a time - the 70th anniversary of the war's end - when both the man and the times and events depicted were being celebrated and remembered.

Brian Cox is a decent actor, and he plays his role with, er... well, if not gusto, then something similar. But the Churchill we see here is petulant, contrarian and ill-informed. The issue for me isn't really about how this portrayal undermines the celebrated image of Churchill, which it certainly does. It's about the implausibility of so many moments, from the more personal and mundane level, like his secretaries' emotional outburst over her spouse, to grand strategy; the idea that Monty only let Churchill in on his plans for D-Day the day before the invasion is utterly preposterous.

We did watch the film all the way through; the acting and production made it watchable. But I did find it beyond the pale, in terms of attempting to pass itself off as an exposé of the 'man behind the myth' (a tag-line for the movie was "the icon you know, the man you don't"). In the parlance of our times this might be described as a historical 'reboot'. But that would play down what is, frankly, a shockingly poor, slanderous even, rendering of history.

By all means watch it. But be sure to check it against real history.

Film Review: Midway, 2019

Teresa and I went to see this new epic WWII movie whilst attending Scale Model World in Telford. The Odeon where we saw it has fantastically luxurious reclining chairs. Very nice! The small screening theatre we were in was practically empty. Perhaps 20 odd viewers in a room that might take 80-100. A pity, really, as a full house generates its own excitement.

Never mind that, however... I absolutely loved this film. Every time a modern movie on WWII comes out I have high hopes for it. Hopes that I fully expect will be dashed on viewing. Such was the case with Dunkirk, which I loathed with a passion. So much modern cinema is nowt more than dumb spectacle. I was worried this might fall into that trap.

The attack on Pearl Harbour...

... is briefly, brutally and excitingly depicted.

Well, in a way it does. It's a massive dose of schlockbusting CGI action, with an overly reverential approach to its square-jawed hypermasculine heroes. In many ways, whilst it professes earnestly to be a true story, however closely it may sail to the facts of events, it is a Hollywood fantasy of sorts. But, and here's the key thing for me, this is both enormous fun, and highly exciting drama. Emmerich also gets quite a lot in: we start before the war, jump to Pearl Harbour, and get to Midway itself via The Coral Sea, the Doolittle Raids and so on.

Dick Best (Ed Skrein) at left.

Doolittle (Aaron Eckhardt), in peril in Jap occupied China.

Murray (Keean Johnson), Best and fellow personnel.

An ensemble film, with a host of characters, events unfold at numerous levels, including both the domestic and the military (with the accent heavily on the latter!), depicting all involved, from top brass to lowly rankers. The group of characters we follow through these events are sufficiently engaging to keep us interested in the bigger picture as it develops.

All the actors acquit themselves well. Characters like Layton (Patrick Wilson), the intelligence guy, pilots lieutenants McClusky and Best (Ed Skrein and Luke Evans), and man at the top Chester Nimitz (Woody Harrelson) are solid in the chief roles. But, offhand, I might pick out Dennis Quaid as Admiral Halsey and Nick Jonas as Machinist's Mate Bruno as two particularly engaging characters. In that respect this resembles old fashioned WWII epics like The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far. And it actually trumps these old movies thanks to ever improving CGI.

Japanese attack...

U.S. ships at Pearl Harbour...

Bombs straddle a Carrier.

Epic scenes such as this are the meat and potatoes of this movie.

CGI was once a pet hate of mine, and occasionally still is: when a film looks like a PlayStation promo, or the CGI is simply unconvincing, I detest it. But in this film it makes for some truly epic and yet credible shots/scenes. Whilst we're on the technical side; the sound design of Dunkirk irritated and even appalled me. This, which when seen on the big screen is a veritable assault on the ears as much as the eyes, succeeds. The battle scenes - especially the aerial assaults on the ships - are incredibly intense.

I enjoyed this so much I'm sorely tempted to get back to the cinema in short order, and watch it again.  I don't think it's a truly great film. The characterisations are pretty thin, and it's all a bit chest-thumpingly manly. But I loved it, and enjoyed it enormously. If you think you might enjoy seeing Midway and the events leading up to it depicted in a fun action packed and yet epic but believable manner, I'd recommend Midway wholeheartedly.

This image is a fair representation of the excitement the film achieves.

Emmerich, beside TA-127, a North American Aviation T-6 Texan.

It was also interesting, as a kind of footnote, to find out (after watching the movie) that Emmerich had to finance this very Hollywood style production - the big studios were chary of another lavish WWII epic, many of which over the years have cost a lot and then flopped - outside the normal fiscal channels, including taking a cut in his own fee. I really hope this makes Emmerich and everyone involved a healthy profit!

Film Review: The Sea Shall Not Have Them, 1954

Having recently read Coastal Convoys, 1939-45 (my review of that book here), by Nick Hewitt, I wanted to watch this again, as it's based on exactly the same subject. It does a pretty good of showing the awful conditions that the naval and airborne arms had to endure whilst operating on, above, and sometimes in the cold cruel seas.

To those familiar with this era of movie-making there will be a number of recognisable faces, like Michael Redgrave and Dirk Bogarde [1] and several others (Victor Madeern, Joan Sims, etc.). Some of the faces I didn't recognise, such as the Yank pretending to be a Canadian, Bonar Colleano (what a name!), turn out to have been reasonably big names in their day. But all acquit themselves pretty well, albeit in familiar postwar war-film cliché type moulds.

The plot boils down to four men in a downed plane (a Lockheed Hudson bomber, perhaps?) winding up in a dinghy, drifting through E-boat Alley and minefields towards the occupied European coast. Three are the crew of the plane, the fourth is brass with a vital dossier of info on 'Jerry's' latest wunderwaffen missiles. Coastal Command seeks to recover the men and their prized intelligence, their efforts hampered by poor weather, and simultaneously seeking to calm worried ladies left back home.

It's fascinating to see life/operations aboard an RAF Coastal Command rescue plane (is it a Walrus I, or a Sunderland?) and what I believe is probably at Type II boat, the aerial and seaborne mainstays of naval rescue. It's also interesting to see how a downed Luftwaffe pilot is treated. Whilst this is certainly not the best WWII movie, or even the best 'wet WWII' film, it is a moving and stirring tribute to all concerned, and shines a welcome light on what Hewitt in his aforementioned book justly describes as an overlooked aspect of WWII at sea. 

---

The book on which the film is based.

[1] An amusing bit of trivia: Noel Coward reputedly said, referring to the film's title in relation to the two main male leads - Redgrave said to be bisexual, and Bogarde homosexual - 'I don't see why not; everybody else has'!

Film Review: Flat Top, 1952

Reading John Grehan's Battle of Midway got me very interested in USN aircraft carriers. I tried to find a WWII movie on the subject, and discovered Flat Top. Made in 1952, and starring Sterling Hayden, an actor I really dig, whilst in truth not a classic film, it is pretty much exactly what I wanted.

Sterling Hayden, a man's man in a man's world!

Great footage of USN carrier operations.

What I was looking for was a film that would show aspects of the operational and tactical life of such a vessel, and her crew. And Flat Top, whilst a bit thin and, pardon the pun, flat as a drama or character study - the drama is okay, but the characters are rather 2-D and clichéd - clearly takes pleasure in showing the multifarious aspects of life and operations aboard a WWII USN aircraft carrier.

The entire film is one long flashback, as Hayden's Cmdr. Dan Collier character recalls his WWII service aboard the same carrier in which we find him, which starts with his being given command of a new batch of raw recruit pilots. The well-worn cliché of the by-the-book hardass who ultimately comes to be loved by his men is then played out over a series of scenarios. 

Heavy use is made of real WWII stock combat footage, both of fleet activity and even more so aerial combat. The contrast of the gung-ho mirth of the pilots with the anonymous Japs being so easily and merrily dispatched is a bit disconcerting. Indeed, the enemy remains an abstracted nonentity until quite late in the film, when we start to occasionally see the human cost to both sides.

Several sequences, such as this one ...

... show how the arrestor wires work.

I suppose this was a propagandist movie, made  as it was during the Korean War, the opening scene showing jets landing on the carrier. In that respect it is a bit cornball. But what I like about the film is seeing operational stuff, like the maintenance and fuelling/arming of planes, above and below decks. Take offs and landings (the latter showing arrestor wires in use), with 'ground crew' at work, and the inter-deck elevators in action.

There's quite a lot of footage like this...

showing deck crew servicing planes...

... loading various armaments, etc.

We also see how the officers and men live, the former in their own private but box-like quarters, the latter in dorms full of bunks. There are meals in the mess, pilot briefings (in surprisingly large/luxurious looking chairs!), and red-lit acclimatisation for night combat/flying.

Below deck crew follow the action in an ops room type setting.

One of the more timeworn themes is that old chestnut of individual vs. group. This is less grating than the wafer-thin characterisations of the protagonists - a election of Everyman types, from jocks to poets, musicians to lawyers, etc. - and is, in this film as in life, difficult to square/resolve. Hayden's character does so in no uncertain terms. His immediate subordinate has a softer approach (albeit eventually conceding he's 100% wrong!). The overt message here is 'it's the team that wins'. But a certain amount of rugged individualism does sneak in.

So, not a great film, by any means, frankly. But certainly well worth watching if you're fascinated by the maritime and airborne aspects of the war in the Pacific.

One of the few glimpses we get of the Japanese enemy.

Film Review: USS Franklin, Honor Restored, 2011

Having recently read about the battle of Midway, and the fate of USS Yorktown, an interest in American aircraft carriers of WWII was ignited in me. I bought the Tamiya 1/300 model of Yorktown CV-5, and watched Flat Top, starring Sterling Hayden. The latter wasn't about the Yorktown specifically, so much as operational life aboard this class of fascinating and gigantic maritime war machine.

Searching for more on the subject I discovered the documentary, USS Franklin, Honor Restored, narrated with the familiar Southern accent of go-to military man for Hollywood, ex-Marine Dale Dye. It tells the incredible story of the 'the ship that wouldn't die'. This is exciting enough in itself. But the drama is further compounded by the actions of its commander at the time, Captain Gehres.

A superbly dramatic photo of the listing inferno that was USS Franklin.

Note men visible amidst the maelstrom of fire and smoke in the hangar decks.

I won't say any more about these stories here. This review is more just a signpost intended to direct people towards watching this film, or reading about the topic. It's a fairly typical WWII documentary, style and execution wise: portentous music plays (almost too much, I found) as former crew members and military history experts are interviewed, intercut with WWII footage, some of which is of USS Franklin, and some of which is generic Pacific War footage that those interested in the theatre will often recognise from elsewhere.

This image* conveys the scale of vessels like CV-13.

The USN eventually fielded - if that's the appropriate term; deployed, perhaps? - over 100 aircraft carriers in the Pacific theatre alone. A staggering figure! The ultimate fate of USS Franklin, given her story, is rather sad. But I won't give too much away here. Whilst Honor Restored is not an out and out classic of its type, it is nevertheless a very compelling story solidly told. Definitely worth watching.

---

A website devoted to the vessel and her crew is maintained here.

* USS Franklin, listing 13°, with USS Santa Fe alongside.

Dye talks about narrating the story of USS Franklin.

Film Review: They Fought For Their Country (Они сражались за Родину), 1975

I became aware of this movie, starring and directed by Sergei Bondarchuk, of War And Peace and Waterloo fame, whilst researching a post on Road To Berlin. Folk at the Kinokultura website, a place specialising in modern Russian cinema, didn't like the latter, comparing it unfavourably with this. Hmm? Well, having watched both now, I still prefer Road To Berlin. Never take the experts at their word, I say. Always make your own mind up!

This said, it might simply be that the version I saw was fatally marred by certain things: firstly the subtitles were frequently very out of sync' with the film, and secondly, the soundtrack was appalling. It sounded as if it had been recorded entirely separately and in the studio, just as many dubbed films are. So, for example, the dubbed version of Stalingrad is, for me, unwatchable bad. Whilst the German OST transforms it into a masterpiece. 

Is there a version of this with a good/better soundtrack? If so, I'd like to see it. As it is, the disembodied ultra-flat soundscape of this version completely kills the film. Or it does for me at least. There are numerous other issues however, such as a large proportion of the key cast being 40 or 50 year olds. There may have been some old folks in the Russian army. But this gives the impression they were the backbone of the Soviet forces!

A rather nice montage, giving a flavour of the film.

And then there's the whole 'Russian Soul' thing [1]. On the one hand this is quite good, as it means much more dialogue and character based narrative than many a gung-ho action packed Hollywood style drama. And Hollywood this most definitely ain't. It's pure Russian/Kremlin. And in that latter remark I allude to a further problem, related to the leaden Russian Soul element, which is myth, or more properly in this context, propaganda.

The characterisations wobble between caricature and propaganda, only occasionally connecting with the intended humble reality of the ordinary fighting men this is clearly meant to be a homage/testimony to. This also leads to the Russians becoming like an army of philosopher saints, whilst the Germans are like Injuns in an old Western, automaton cannon fodder. From my reasonably wide reading on the Ostfront Russia was more profligate with their troops' lives than the Germans.

The action unfolds on the Don Front, which, if it's anything like it's depicted here, was a very dusty, sandy, rocky region, and takes place in 1942. The Russians are retreating, and the troops we follow are acting as a rearguard, whilst the main Russian armies retreat across the Don to regroup. The film is pretty epic in scale, something of a speciality with many Bondarchuk productions. Indeed, it's so big and long it's split into two films!

Battle scenes are pretty impressive.

Towards the end of the first film Bondarchuk's character appears to die as the German's overwhelm the Russian line, in a very implausible scene. But no, he's rescued by a female child nurse, who drags him back to the lines. An interminable hospital scene comes over almost comically, as he raves endlessly on, in long indulgent hammy monologues. If I'd been the surgeon I've either sedated the windbag or cut an artery. Anything to shut him up!

It does have some good points, however. I do like films that take their time. And this certainly does. For a war film it's very slow paced, with more character based interaction than battle scenes. But there are battle scenes, and they're quite impressive in certain respects, such as sheer scale. Lots of planes are used, some apparently even bring crashed. And large numbers of T-34s or similar masquerade reasonably well as Pz IV type tanks. 

Also the whole troops at march or in camp side of things is pretty well done, and you really get a sense of place. Indeed, the landscape is almost treated as a protagonist, as befits a film in which the country/nation/land is part of the title and subject. So, all in all? Something if a mixed bag, perhaps on account of the dubbed soundtrack. Not great, as is. But certainly worth watching.

---

Some more pictures:

Looks like the film was part of a 30th Anniversary commemoration.

Bondarchuk in battle.

The company's chef, post bombardment.

Vasily Shukshin as Piotr Lopakhin.

Suitably rugged and cool!