Red Dawn (2012)
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
Setting aside the hubris of remaking a film such as Red Dawn, the 2012 reboot had a troubled production. Shot over the course of late 2009, on location in Michigan, MGM intended to release the film in September 2010. However, the studio’s financial problems became unsustainable over the course of that year and the film was shelved, while a financial solution was sought. Furthermore, while Red Dawn was in post production, there was a major economic shift within Hollywood due to the increasing importance of the Chinese market. This was a significant problem for MGM because the new version of Red Dawn had the Chinese invading the USA instead of Russia. Hence there were reshoots and the need for additional visual effects, so that the Chinese could be replaced with North Koreans. MGM eventually went bankrupt and the distribution rights to Red Dawn were sold off. The film was eventually released in 2012.
Directed by stunt coordinator and second unit director Dan Bradley, Red Dawn offers nothing more than a formulaic narrative and a simplistic plot, supplemented by some distinctly PG-13 rated action scenes. Unlike the original film, written and directed by legendary filmmaker John Milius, there is little character development, a conspicuous lack of political commentary and nothing of note to say on the nature of war. Furthermore there is no credible attempt to explain how the US was invaded by North Korea. It is casually brushed aside after a vague opening montage and then conspicuously ignored for the remainder of the story. It is possible that such material may well have existed in the original cut of the film, when the enemy was China and there was no time or resources to replace it. Or it could just be poor writing.
Upon its release in 1984, the original version of Red Dawn was denounced as Reaganite propaganda by some critics. However, irrespective of director John Milius’ politics, the film had quite a powerful anti-war commentary. It also had characters you cared about with a credible story arc. You got to watch them grow up and make hard decisions. There was some depth to the proceedings, as well as things going “boom”. Dan Bradley’s remake has nothing other than things going “boom” and even that is not especially well done. The teenage cast lack a credible journey, simply morphing from green kids to crack troops, courtesy of a training montage. The main antagonist, Captain Cho (Will Yun Lee) lacks any backstory and is simply flagged as “bad” when he executes a lead character’s father. Calling Red Dawn perfunctory is generous.
Even the presence of Chris Hemsworth fails to improve the situation. Furthermore, this time round his character has prior military experience which mitigates the main theme of the story that wars are often fought by the young, who have to learn on their feet. The much revised script by Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore makes a few vague attempts to try and say something meaningful but these fail. Hence one character espouses “I miss Call of Duty” only for his colleague to admonish him with the philosophical retort “Dude, we're living Call of Duty... It sucks”. Viewers can’t even take solace in a gritty action scene, as the film is meticulously edited to meet the criteria of its chosen rating. The fire-fights are bloodless and there’s a single and rather obvious use of the word “Fuck” in a contrived kiss off line. Even the film’s title no longer makes any sense due to the plot changes.
Zulu Dawn (1979)
Zulu (1964) recounts the Battle of Rorke’s Drift between the British Army and the Zulus in January 1879. Directed, produced and co-written by Cy Endfield the film presents an action filled account of how 150 British soldiers, 30 of whom were sick and wounded, successfully held off a force of 4,000 Zulu warriors. Although well made and rousing, it is very much a film from the British perspective. Despite depicting the Zulu nation fairly, the film makes no attempt to put the clash between two empires in any sort of wider context. Zulu Dawn is a direct prequel which shows the events that directly lead up to the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. Much more time is dedicated to exploring the Zulu’s position as their leader King Cetshwayo attempts to avoid the political fait accompli he has been presented with. Furthermore, Zulu Dawn does not in any way try to avoid the failure of the British chain of command that resulted in the defeat of 1,300 British soldiers at the Battle of Isandlwana.
Zulu (1964) recounts the Battle of Rorke’s Drift between the British Army and the Zulus in January 1879. Directed, produced and co-written by Cy Endfield the film presents an action filled account of how 150 British soldiers, 30 of whom were sick and wounded, successfully held off a force of 4,000 Zulu warriors. Although well made and rousing, it is very much a film from the British perspective. Despite depicting the Zulu nation fairly, the film makes no attempt to put the clash between two empires in any sort of wider context. Zulu Dawn is a direct prequel which shows the events that directly lead up to the Battle of Rorke’s Drift. Much more time is dedicated to exploring the Zulu’s position as their leader King Cetshwayo attempts to avoid the political fait accompli he has been presented with. Furthermore, Zulu Dawn does not in any way try to avoid the failure of the British chain of command that resulted in the defeat of 1,300 British soldiers at the Battle of Isandlwana.
Fearing that the Zulus are becoming too powerful in the region, Lord Chelmsford (Peter O'Toole) plots with diplomat Sir Henry Bartle Frere (John Mills) to annex the neighbouring Zulu Empire, despite there being an existing treaty in place. Subsequent demands to demilitarise are rejected by King Cetshwayo (Simon Sabela) giving Lord Chelmsford casus belli to invade. Prior to embarking into Zulu territory the British forces are reinforced with native troops and the Natal Mounted Police. However, the Zulus refuse to directly engage the British forces and pursue guerilla attacks. The British expeditionary force subsequently makes camp at Mount Isandlwana but rejects the advice from the Boer contingents to fortify the camp around the ammunition wagons. Lord Chelmsford divides his forces and heads a column to pursue bogus sightings of Zulu forces. Meanwhile the Zulu army masses near Isandlwana, preparing to engage the British camp.
Zulu Dawn takes time in setting the scene and explaining the historical situation. The first act cuts between a garden party being held by Sir Henry Bartle Frere, High Commissioner for Southern Africa and celebrations at Zulu capital, Ulundi. Both events provide a backdrop to ongoing political machinations. The screenplay by Cy Endfield cleverly uses the casual conversations between the officers wives and regional Missionaries to summarise the hubris and condescension of the British in Natal at the time. The disposition of the troops is also explored through the relationships between Colour Sergeant Williams (Bob Hoskins) and raw recruit Private Williams (Dai Bradley). Quartermaster Sergeant Bloomfield (Peter Vaughan) is shown to be a “jobsworth” and instrumental in contributing to the deteriorating situation at the film’s climax. Col. Durnford (Burt Lancaster) is shown to be savvy and well versed in fighting the Zulus. Hence his advice is scorned by his British superiors due to his Irish heritage.
The second act of Zulu Dawn follows the British as they make a series of ill conceived decisions after crossing into Zulu territory. Cinematographer Ousama Rawi makes effective use of the rugged South African terrain. The climax of the film follows in detail the attack upon the British lines by the Zulu and how they overwhelmed them. The subsequent retreat became a rout and one of the most serious defeats for British forces in their military history. Although not excessively explicit in its depiction of violence, director Douglas Hickox does well in depicting the growing sense of fear and disbelief among the British troops as they realise that the tide of the battle is rapidly turning against them. The failure to get ammunition from the wagons to the troops is a major factor. I suspect that the film’s depiction of a major defeat, rather than the usual narrative of the plucky underdog who wins despite the odds may discourage some viewers. Zulu Dawn is more likely to engage those seeking historical authenticity rather than pure action.
Murphy's War (1971)
During the last days of World War II, the British Merchant Navy ship Mount Kyle is torpedoed by a German U-Boat off the coast of Venezuela. The crew are subsequently massacred as they abandon ship, leaving one survivor, an Irish engineer named Murphy (Peter O’Toole). After being rescued by Louis Brezon (Philippe Noiret), a caretaker for an oil company which has a pipeline in the area, he is taken to a local missionary medical facility run by Dr. Hayden (Siân Phillips). Upon recovering, Murphy becomes determined to find the U-Boat that sank his ship and seeks revenge. However, as the war is clearly drawing to a close Dr. Hayden is reluctant to help him and tries to dissuade him from his plan as it may endanger the local community. In the meantime, Murphy finds a damaged Grumman J2F Duck floatplane from his ship and salvages it. With the assistance of Louis, he makes some improvised munitions and draws his plans against the Germans.
During the last days of World War II, the British Merchant Navy ship Mount Kyle is torpedoed by a German U-Boat off the coast of Venezuela. The crew are subsequently massacred as they abandon ship, leaving one survivor, an Irish engineer named Murphy (Peter O’Toole). After being rescued by Louis Brezon (Philippe Noiret), a caretaker for an oil company which has a pipeline in the area, he is taken to a local missionary medical facility run by Dr. Hayden (Siân Phillips). Upon recovering, Murphy becomes determined to find the U-Boat that sank his ship and seeks revenge. However, as the war is clearly drawing to a close Dr. Hayden is reluctant to help him and tries to dissuade him from his plan as it may endanger the local community. In the meantime, Murphy finds a damaged Grumman J2F Duck floatplane from his ship and salvages it. With the assistance of Louis, he makes some improvised munitions and draws his plans against the Germans.
I suspect that Murphy’s War was intended to be a minimalist exploration of the old adage “if you devote your life to seeking revenge, first dig two graves”. Written by Stirling Silliphant (The Enforcer, Towering Inferno) and directed by Peter Yates (Bullitt, The Deep and Krull), Murphy’s War teases the audience with several instances of potential narrative depths. What motivates U-Boat Commander Lauchs (Horst Janson) to shoot the crew of the Mount Kyle, as they pose no threat to him or his vessel? Is there a love triangle between Murphy, Dr. Hayden and Louis? Why is Murphy so motivated to destroy the U-Boat, considering he initially comes across as a reluctant seaman with little love for English Officers. There’s even a tenuous reference to the IRA. Is he deranged or honourable? These questions raise some interesting opportunities for the film to explore some timeless cinematic themes.
Sadly, even within the deliberately understated framework of seventies cinema, these elements are woefully neglected, leaving us with a matter of fact story that struggles to fill its 106 minutes running time. It’s all somewhat ponderous and very frustrating when considering the quality of the cast and production. Hence we have lengthy scenes in which Murphy struggles to fly the salvaged seaplane and then later, flying around the Orinoco River searching for his quarry. It’s all beautifully shot by veteran cinematographer, Douglas Slocombe, but it often feels like padding to bolster a story that isn’t anywhere near as deep as it likes to think. The climax of the film and Murphy’s subsequent Pyrrhic victory lacks any dramatic impact because there’s no explanation for his descent into a latter day Captain Ahab. The audience is left to ponder whether it was all worthwhile and I for one, broadly feel that it wasn’t. Considering the pedigree of this production, Murphy’s War should be much better.
Fury (2014)
One of the things that immediately strikes you when watching Fury is its credibility and realism. The film reeks of authenticity. Every aspect of the production has been meticulously researched, from uniform and equipment, to ordnance and tactics. The M4A3E8 Sherman tank was not only the workhorse of the US Army but also a home for its five man crew. Director David Ayer makes this idea the foundation of his movie and then proceeds to explore those two perennial themes, the horrors of war and the loss of innocence. The film focuses on the experiences of the crew consisting of Don "Wardaddy" Collier (Brad Pitt), gunner Boyd "Bible" Swan (Shia LeBeouf), loader Grady "Coon-Ass" Travis (Jon Bernthal), and driver Trini "Gordo" Garcia (Michael Peña). They’re a tight knit family, relying on each other to stay alive and keep their mental stability.
One of the things that immediately strikes you when watching Fury is its credibility and realism. The film reeks of authenticity. Every aspect of the production has been meticulously researched, from uniform and equipment, to ordnance and tactics. The M4A3E8 Sherman tank was not only the workhorse of the US Army but also a home for its five man crew. Director David Ayer makes this idea the foundation of his movie and then proceeds to explore those two perennial themes, the horrors of war and the loss of innocence. The film focuses on the experiences of the crew consisting of Don "Wardaddy" Collier (Brad Pitt), gunner Boyd "Bible" Swan (Shia LeBeouf), loader Grady "Coon-Ass" Travis (Jon Bernthal), and driver Trini "Gordo" Garcia (Michael Peña). They’re a tight knit family, relying on each other to stay alive and keep their mental stability.
In many respects Fury tells a very traditional story, as a new crew member Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman) joins the team and the movie is told from his perspective. What makes the proceedings different is the setting (with its tangible sense of claustrophobia) and the reluctance by the director to place the protagonists on a pedestal. These soldiers have a job to do and they deal with it by stripping away the moral ambiguity and psychological ramifications associated with warfare. They undertake their duties in a clinical and functional manner out of necessity and it's not pretty. In some respects Fury has many similarities with Sam Peckinpah’s Cross of Iron (1977) and Samuel Fuller’s The Big Red One (1980). It certainly doesn't have the rose tinted, moral perspective of Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan (1998) which was undermined by its bookend scenes.
With a movie such as this where the plot hinges on the tight knit social dynamics of the tank crew, you need a strong cast and Fury has this in spades. All actors put in strong performances, especially Shia LeBeouf who plays a lay preacher struggling to reconcile his faith with the carnage around him. Director Ayer also cranks up the tension outside of the battle scenes. After capturing a German town the tank crew enters a house to find two terrified women who naturally expect the worst. In a desperate attempt for normality and for a brief respite from the war, Sergeant Collier tries to impose some order on their lives by having a meal around a dinner table. Sadly, it does not go well and highlights the mental strain that all are under.
There are two stand out battle scenes in Fury that really leave their mark on the viewer. One involves a formation of four Sherman tanks taking on a German Tiger I, which was a technically superior vehicle. The tactics are credible and realistic, as is the depiction of the damage armour piercing ordnance can do. Then there is the climactic battle in which the crew of Fury expend all the ammunition they have in an attempt to fend off a column of three hundred Waffen-SS infantry. Both these scenes are compelling and tense. We see the realities of being on the receiving end of a .50 calibre Browning or a shell loaded with white phosphorus. However, director David Ayer finds the right balance with these scenes of violence and injury and does not teeter into excess.
The ending of Fury may not come as any surprise and it makes perfect sense within the context of the story. Anything else would harm the credibility of the movie and possibly be disrespectful to those who did serve under such conditions. There is a nod to traditional war movie symbolism as the film starts and ends with a white horse. As World War II recedes further into the past and the public’s connection to it becomes less and less each year, it is important that the subject is still explored by cinema. Fury offers a fresh perspective on the conventional trope that "war is hell". It is a theme that remains relevant and still provides quality film makers with a rich vein of material to mine. It is technically accurate and certainly flies in the face of standard Hollywood depictions of military engagements.
Greyhound (2020)
Greyhound is a curious film in that it flies in the face of one’s expectations. When I (and possibly others) see an advertisement or trailer for a World War II movie starring Tom Hanks, I naturally assume that the lead actor has been hired for his prodigious acting talent and that he’ll be providing an in depth character study. I was expecting Greyhound to be the story of an untested US Naval Commander enduring an ordeal by fire on his first escort mission. And that is to a degree what director Aaron Schneider provides but instead of the narrative arc focusing on Ernest Krause’s emotional struggles with his duties, we instead get a docudrama focusing on the technicalities of naval warfare. The latter approach is certainly engaging and at times tense and exciting but this decision narrows the appeal of the film. I personally would have preferred the former.
Greyhound is a curious film in that it flies in the face of one’s expectations. When I (and possibly others) see an advertisement or trailer for a World War II movie starring Tom Hanks, I naturally assume that the lead actor has been hired for his prodigious acting talent and that he’ll be providing an in depth character study. I was expecting Greyhound to be the story of an untested US Naval Commander enduring an ordeal by fire on his first escort mission. And that is to a degree what director Aaron Schneider provides but instead of the narrative arc focusing on Ernest Krause’s emotional struggles with his duties, we instead get a docudrama focusing on the technicalities of naval warfare. The latter approach is certainly engaging and at times tense and exciting but this decision narrows the appeal of the film. I personally would have preferred the former.
Based on the 1955 novel The Good Shepherd by C. S. Forester and adapted for the screen by Tom Hanks himself, Greyhound is the story of Commander Ernest Krause during his first war-time assignment. The USS Keeling, codenamed Greyhound, is the lead ship in a multi-national escort group defending a merchant ship convoy. As the allied vessels enter the aptly named "Black Pit"; the Mid-Atlantic gap where they are out of range of air support, a five day game of cat and mouse begins with a German U-boat Wolfpack. Will Commander Krause’s “by the book” approach be sufficient in countering the German threat? Can an unproven Commander deal with the pressure of naval warfare during the Battle of the Atlantic, only months after the U.S. officially entered World War II?
Several critics have raised the question as to whether Greyhound went through a major re-edit just prior to its release. As I have not read about anything to this effect I must conclude that this is not the case. Therefore it must be assumed that the brevity of this film and its focus on naval procedure and tactics was intended. As Tom Hanks is an actor often associated with in-depth character studies, many people (myself included) expected a movie which not only explored the Battle of the Atlantic but also dealt with the burden of command. The film gives us hints regarding Commander Krause. We see his fiancée give him a Christmas gift of monogram slippers. There are several scenes where he prays, implying that faith is a key facet of his personality. There is also a recurring joke in which he misses all the meals his steward prepares for him. All of these could have been expanded into broader vignettes and indeed I was hoping they were. However, they remain as simple asides.
From a technical perspective, Greyhound is both compelling and accurate. The naval tactics depicted are factually correct and well realised. The visual effects by DNEG (formerly Double Negative) are of a high standard. The ocean is a difficult medium to represent digitally but the action sequences focus upon technique rather than spectacle, so they offer a higher degree of realism than those in similar movies such as U-571. However, therein lies the main criticism of Greyhound. It is very much a facts driven WWII naval docudrama, as opposed to a character study about the men taking part. We see several members of the ship’s crew but beyond their duties we know little about them. I suspect there was more of a human element in C. S. Forester book. As it stands, Greyhound is a good film with niche market appeal. An extra 30 minutes of expanded character development may have turned a good film into a great one.
Midway (2019)
Big budget, historically driven movies that set out to recount key events of World War II are a rarity these days. If you ignore the bombastic inanities of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor (2001), then you have to go back to the late seventies to films such as A Bridge Too Far to find a suitable example. This is why Roland Emmerich’s Midway came as a genuine surprise. When I saw a trailer for the film last October, I was flummoxed that such a production had been made. My initial concerns were that it would focus on spectacle rather than historical fact and trivialise events of great military and historical importance. After having watched Midway, I am pleased to report that this is a surprising throwback in many ways. The film covers the events of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the subsequent Doolittle Raids on Tokyo by the US and the Battle of Midway, both succinctly and accurately. Furthermore, much of the cast play real veterans who participated in these events. Overall this is an entertaining and informative movie that feels like a relic from fifty years ago. However, its docudrama aspirations also make for somewhat generic character development.
Big budget, historically driven movies that set out to recount key events of World War II are a rarity these days. If you ignore the bombastic inanities of Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor (2001), then you have to go back to the late seventies to films such as A Bridge Too Far to find a suitable example. This is why Roland Emmerich’s Midway came as a genuine surprise. When I saw a trailer for the film last October, I was flummoxed that such a production had been made. My initial concerns were that it would focus on spectacle rather than historical fact and trivialise events of great military and historical importance. After having watched Midway, I am pleased to report that this is a surprising throwback in many ways. The film covers the events of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the subsequent Doolittle Raids on Tokyo by the US and the Battle of Midway, both succinctly and accurately. Furthermore, much of the cast play real veterans who participated in these events. Overall this is an entertaining and informative movie that feels like a relic from fifty years ago. However, its docudrama aspirations also make for somewhat generic character development.
Midway faces the dilemma that historical movies of this kind often encounter. How to balance the exposition of factual events along with a plethora of real life characters and weave both elements into a narrative arc. All too often characters have little scope for development and end up being simple archetypes. Ed Skrein as Lieutenant Richard Dick Best, typifies this. He tries to bring a sense of urgency to the proceedings as he journeys from strong headed risk taker to a seasoned officer, responsible for the men in his command. Sadly the screenplay presents this in a very formulaic way. Patrick Wilson has perhaps the greatest dramatic scope as Lieutenant Commander Edwin T. Layton, who is driven to ensure that Naval Intelligence gets things right at Midway after the disaster at Pearl Harbor. Overall, the strong cast of character actors does not get in the way of the proceedings but you do feel that you’d like to know more about them all, other than just a basic text book summary.
It is obvious that a great deal of research has gone into the visual effects in Midway. Broadly, the depiction of both Naval and air battles ring true. But at times there is an element of digital “showboating” when the onscreen action slips into spectacle, possibly at the expense of technical accuracy. Dive bombing is by its very nature a high risk undertaking but is there really a need to embellish the drama with last minute escapes from explosive fireballs and planes skimming the wave as they desperately attempt to climb? CGI also lacks the sense of mass and physical presence that filming with real ships and aircraft offers. But as such relic of World War II are in short supply, one cannot be too critical of the films production design. Midway tries to present the scale of the loss of life on both sides without getting bogged down in too much graphic violence. Broadly in works well within the confines of the PG-13 rating.
Unlike older war movies, Midway is not driven by a gung-ho imperative and does not arbitrarily paint the Japanese as two dimensional caricatures. There are brief nods to Japanese geo-political expansion at the beginning of the film and Japanese Naval tactics and motivations are shown to balance those of the US. Midway does go on to show the consequences of the Doolittle Raid and how the Chinese Nationalists faced reprisals for helping American pilots. There is no mention of Japanese-American internment. Overall, if you are interested in military dramas or are looking for an action driven war movie, then Midway can provide both. The character development and screenplay are somewhat basic but they successfully underpin the action sequences and move the story from A to B. Despite the very modern approach to direction, editing and aesthetics, there is a retro quality to the film. It is interesting to see a modern production whose primary remit is to educate, rather than just to provide disposable entertainment.
American Sniper (2014)
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
It was hardly surprising that the movie adaptation of Chris Kyle's autobiography American Sniper, would cause controversy. The Iraq war, US Foreign Policy and national pride are seldom subjects that are discussed in a calm and measured fashion. And then there are the personal politics of director Clint Eastwood to consider. Hence there were claims from some quarters upon the movie’s release, that it was Islamophobic and counter claims that criticisms of the late Chris Kyle were unpatriotic. There still remain issues regarding the authenticity of events depicted in the source text and subsequently the movies screenplay by Jason Hall. Yet none of these factors have in anyway impacted upon the film's box office returns which currently stands at $247,900,417 worldwide.
American Sniper is directed by Clint Eastwood in his customary minimalist and no-nonsense fashion, allowing us to focus on the subject matter without any unnecessary embellishment. Tom Stern's cinematography is far from flamboyant and appropriately stark. The central performances by Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle and Sienna Miller as his wife Taya Renae Kyle are both strong and clearly defined. Criticisms about a lack of depth and balance are misplaced as far as I'm concerned. If real people have strong views or convictions should that reality not be reflected in the script? Furthermore this is not a movie about the Iraq War itself and an exploration of the geo-political ramifications. It is simply a soldier’s story, told from his perspective. It is also a drama and not a documentary.
Eastwood has often explored within his movies the theme of violence and the impact it has upon all involved. In this instance he has chosen to focus upon one particular individual. Steven Spielberg, who was at one point associated with adapting this work, has indicated that he would have approached the subject differently. He intended to explore the curious duality between Chris Kyle and "Mustafa", his Iraqi rival and ex-Olympic marksman. Eastwood takes a different path depicting the emotional toll four tours of duty has upon Kyle and his family. Contrary to some opinions there is no triumphalist tone to the proceedings, nor are the action sequences overblown spectacles. They are straight forward and functional, very much in accord with the director’s approach to film making. The Iraqi's that are depicted in the movie are combatants and are treated as such. Beyond that there is no overt agenda against Islam nor does the film adopt any major political stance. The characters on screen certainly have their own views but American Sniper simply depicts them, rather than endorses them.
There are some flaws in the narrative but they are mainly procedural, rather than ideological. I would have liked to have seen more of Kyles home life between tours, as well as some exploration of the controversies surrounding his book. As for the codicil at the movies end regarding the news coverage of his subsequent death and funeral, again I see this as just a reflection of events rather than a specific commentary upon them. Overall these criticisms do not undermine the movie nor detract from the strong performances. However due to the emotive nature of US politics and even the reputation of its director, perceptions and opinions may well possibly have been skewed regarding the movie’s merits and its perspective.
A notable aspect regarding American Sniper is its soundtrack or virtual lack of one. Beyond three credited pieces of music used at strategic points in the story the movie has no overall score. However many viewers have drawn attention to the montage of news footage regarding Chris Kyles funeral shown at the end of the film. It plays out to a track called "The Funeral", composed by the great Ennio Morricone. The piece is a subtle variation of Taps, a tune played at dusk by the US military. The cue called Il Funerale was first used in the spaghetti Western “Il Ritorno di Ringo” AKA The Return of Ringo in 1965. Like so much of the composer’s work, its inherent beauty lends itself to intelligent use in other movies, thus it greatly compliments the final scenes of American Sniper.
The Last Hunter (1980)
There are many films about war. There are many films about the Vietnam war. A few have transcended mere historical depiction and managed to capture the utter horror and political insanity of the situation, along with the tragic human cost. And then there are those which simply seek to use the setting as a vehicle for an exploitation movie, in the hope of making a fast buck. The Last Hunter (L'ultimo cacciatore) falls firmly into the second camp. This Italian "macaroni combat" movie (yes, I didn’t know that’s a thing either) offers a straight forward tale of an incursion behind enemy lines by an officer charged with destroying a radio transmitter, broadcasting anti-US propaganda. It is violent, action packed and surprisingly honest about what sort of film it is. You’ll find no pretentious philosophical musings here. Just explosions, rotting corpses and Viet Cong booby traps.
There are many films about war. There are many films about the Vietnam war. A few have transcended mere historical depiction and managed to capture the utter horror and political insanity of the situation, along with the tragic human cost. And then there are those which simply seek to use the setting as a vehicle for an exploitation movie, in the hope of making a fast buck. The Last Hunter (L'ultimo cacciatore) falls firmly into the second camp. This Italian "macaroni combat" movie (yes, I didn’t know that’s a thing either) offers a straight forward tale of an incursion behind enemy lines by an officer charged with destroying a radio transmitter, broadcasting anti-US propaganda. It is violent, action packed and surprisingly honest about what sort of film it is. You’ll find no pretentious philosophical musings here. Just explosions, rotting corpses and Viet Cong booby traps.
Directed by veteran Italian film maker Antonio Margheriti (and billed as Anthony Dawson on English language prints), The Last Hunter is a well-made (by Italian cash-in genre standards) exploitation war movie, with a solid international cast and good action set pieces. Margheriti had a background in miniature effects and the film features several scenes of this kind, such as the rail yard bombing at the start and the jungle cave demolition in the films second act. The dialogue is functional (and all dubbed in post-production like so many Italian movies of this kind) and the story efficiently moves the actors from set piece to set piece. There’s even the bonus of a minor twist in the movies climax. David Warbeck is suitably grizzled and burnt out as Captain Morris and Tisa Farrow fills the roll of the “plucky news reporter” embedded with the unit. There’s also wise cracking banter between Tony King and Bobby Rhodes as the units African-American representation. Connoisseurs of eighties Italian genre movies will delight at the cast and the additional inclusion of John Steiner as a suitably deranged Major.
Being an Italian movie of the times, there are copious acts of violence including a graphic gunshot to the eye, a partial decapitation and a leg amputation. There’s also a lot of crude barrack room humour and an attempted rape, but hey that’s how these movies roll. It almost as if there’s a check list being followed. The location cinematography in the Philippines gives the proceedings an authentic feel and like so many Italian movies from this decade, the soundtrack by Franco Micalizzi is contemporary, funky and far more interesting than some traditional orchestral scores. As this movie is not designed to be a cerebral undertaking it has to be judged on what it has to offer. And on that basis, then The Last Hunter is a better than average ninety plus minutes of Italian exploitation cinema. It is also a good steeping stone into the wider works of director Antonio Margheriti. If you enjoy this movie you may wish to try, Codename: Wild Geese (three guesses which movie this rips off), Command Leopard and Killer Fish. All have an interesting international cast, miniatures effects work along with either gore or action.
The Last Hunter Bonus Track: Music from the opening night club scene.
War for the Planet of the Apes (2017)
There are times when watching the third instalment of the contemporary Planet of the Apes franchise that you feel like your experiencing something akin to Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. There is a narrative depth and an intelligence to the screenplay that you seldom see these days coming from a major studio production. As with the original movies, the story makes multiple subtle points about the nature of humanity and our self-destructive tendencies. Yet it’s all done in a thought full and measured fashion. If you wish to treat War for the Planet of the Apes as simply a science fiction action movie then you will certainly be provided with such a film. However, if you choose to engage your intellect and ponder some of the deeper aspects of the story you’ll be rewarded with much more.
There are times when watching the third instalment of the contemporary Planet of the Apes franchise that you feel like your experiencing something akin to Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line. There is a narrative depth and an intelligence to the screenplay that you seldom see these days coming from a major studio production. As with the original movies, the story makes multiple subtle points about the nature of humanity and our self-destructive tendencies. Yet it’s all done in a thought full and measured fashion. If you wish to treat War for the Planet of the Apes as simply a science fiction action movie then you will certainly be provided with such a film. However, if you choose to engage your intellect and ponder some of the deeper aspects of the story you’ll be rewarded with much more.
Set two years on from events of the previous film the battle between humans and apes, instigated by the traitorous Koba (Toby Kebbell), has rendered the world a wasteland. Primate protagonist Caesar (once again an extraordinary Andy Serkis) is intent on protecting his species with as little further bloodshed possible. "I didn't start this war," he rhetorically states, while reflecting on the immense loss of ape life. Yet fate leads him to an inevitable encounter with Woody Harrelson's Colonel McCullough when his wife and child are killed, sending him on a potentially self-destructive journey. Director Matt Reeves steers the proceedings at a steady pace, focusing on character over action and spectacle. Sharing a writing credit with Mark Bomback, Reeves does not stray from the central story. Unlike other big budget movies, despite the underlying technology that dominates such productions, there is little self-indulgence and excess. This is a story driven by characters and their choices and struggles.
Once again, creativity is the key to exploring the boundaries of the PG-13 rating. The scenes in the prison camp are grim and worryingly plausible. There are nods to both past and contemporary despotism. The action scenes are large in scope but lack the modern trend for frenetic editing. There is violence, but it’s shot in such a way where it is powerful, yet not inherently graphic. Tonally, the movie has a very dour and prophetic ambience. It is also clear exactly which side the audience should be rooting for. There are again further nods to other classic war movies. Anti-ape rhetoric adorns soldiers’ helmets with phrase such as "Monkey killer" and "Ape-ocalypse Now". It’s not too difficult to see hints of Colonel Kilgore in Woody Harrelson's despotic military leader.
There is also a subtle expansion of the world that makes War for the Planet of the Apes feel wider in scope than its predecessor. Overgrown decaying cities, disused railway tracks and abandoned Coca-Cola lorries hammer home the point that this is the near future and not the ancient wasteland that Charlton Heston endured in the original. Yet despite the broad canvas in which events take place, the plot rarely stray from Caesar, orangutan Maurice (Karin Konoval) and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn), who provides a reprieve from the otherwise sombre events. As for the ending of War for the Planet of the Apes, it is the only credible outcome, establishing the narrative that Caesar is the messianic saviour of his people. The audience is left to reflect upon the future of both human and ape society and whether they can coexist or not. However, that is a story for another day but considering the ground that has already been covered by the Planet of the Apes trilogy, possibly a superfluous one.
Darkest Hour (2017)
Darkest Hour, unlike many other biopics, focuses specifically on the initial weeks of Winston Churchill’s first term of office as Prime Minister, in May 1940. It paints a picture of an unwanted leader who inherits the role due to political expediency, rather than through universal support. Considered by the King as a dangerous adventurer and overshadowed by previous policy failures such as the Gallipoli landings and the Indian famine, Churchill is without allies and under pressure to appease the Germans. Director Joe Wright, sets the pieces on the chess board succinctly and within a few minutes audiences are brought up to speed with the prevailing historical situation. It is against this setting that that Darkest Hour then explores Churchills uphill struggle to rally a nation that appears to have no appetite for war and fend off political assassination. With the imminent defeat of the British Army in France and the prospect of a humiliating surrender at Dunkirk, should he seek a negotiated settlement with Germany, via Italian diplomatic sources?
Darkest Hour, unlike many other biopics, focuses specifically on the initial weeks of Winston Churchill’s first term of office as Prime Minister, in May 1940. It paints a picture of an unwanted leader who inherits the role due to political expediency, rather than through universal support. Considered by the King as a dangerous adventurer and overshadowed by previous policy failures such as the Gallipoli landings and the Indian famine, Churchill is without allies and under pressure to appease the Germans. Director Joe Wright, sets the pieces on the chess board succinctly and within a few minutes audiences are brought up to speed with the prevailing historical situation. It is against this setting that that Darkest Hour then explores Churchills uphill struggle to rally a nation that appears to have no appetite for war and fend off political assassination. With the imminent defeat of the British Army in France and the prospect of a humiliating surrender at Dunkirk, should he seek a negotiated settlement with Germany, via Italian diplomatic sources?
It becomes apparent quite quickly that Darkest Hour is not your typical historical drama nor a traditional exploration of Churchill. Although the screenplay references the political machinations of the time, it also delves into the Prime Minister’s personal life and the importance of his wife, Clementine (Kristin Scott Thomas) in tempering the more bombastic aspects of his personality. His new secretary Elizabeth Layton (Lily James) also provides a window into the world of the general public and offers him an invaluable reality check. However, at the heart of Darkest Hour is a sublime performance by Gary Oldman. Some actors may well lapse into a parody of Churchill, especially when working under so much prosthetics makeup effects. Oldman does not do this and projects a nuanced and very convincing interpretation of the man. It certainly is the very definition of an Oscar winning performance but is Darkest Hour itself, a movie of a comparable high standard?
There has been criticism that Darkest Hour at times makes the classic mistake of telling rather than showing. The screenplay by Anthony McCarten, has a lot of dialogue that serves as expositionary cues, providing nuggets of information for the viewers edification. For example, Churchill admits to Anthony Eden that King George VI has never forgiven him for supporting Edward VIII during the abdication. However, I consider this and other scenes to be a matter of accessibility. Not all viewers will be familiar with the historical and socio-economic outlook of the times. What some see as clumsy narrative exposition, I consider to be potentially useful facts designed to accommodate a global audience. I do agree that the so called “referendum on the underground” scene is somewhat contrived and possibly could have been handled in a less melodramatic fashion. Perhaps through correspondence that Churchill had received. Yet again, this plot device serves a purpose in distilling the mood of the British public into a quantifiable scene.
If you step back and judge Darkest Hour as a whole, it is a tremendously rousing film and an enthralling depiction of a key period of UK history. Gary Oldman offers us a flawed but likeable Winston Churchill that encapsulates many of the man’s foibles. Certainly, the screenplay references many of his infamous quips such as referring as to Clement Attlee as a “sheep in sheep’s clothing”. Then there is and the notorious jibe he made when he was interrupted while on the toilet, and informed that the Lord Privy Seal was waiting to see him. “I'm sealed on The Privy and can only deal with one shit at a time” was his response. However, where both Darkest Hour and Gary Oldman excel is during the final part of the film, when Churchill addresses Parliament and delivers his famous “fight them on the beaches” speech. It’s a superbly staged scene with the House of Commons swathed in symbolic shadows, punctuated with shafts of light. Churchill’s words win the day and so begins the slow turning of the tide in World War II. “What just happened?” asks a confused MP. “He just mobilised the English, language and sent it into battle” replies Lord Halifax.
Dunkirk (2017)
Dunkirk is an extraordinary war movie, that eschews the traditional sprawling format of its predecessors, filled with celebrity cameos and contrived expositionary dialogue. Instead Christopher Nolan manages to embrace the concept of “show, don’t tell”, yet uses what little dialogue he has to succinctly punctuate the unfolding story with emotion and gravitas. There is a sense of spectacle, yet it is far from the stark and dispassionate CGI we usually see. Through creative and focused editing Nolan generates a palpable sense of tension, be it in the air with extraordinary aerial dogfights or on the ground as men flee sinking ships and dodge artillery fire. Dunkirk facilitates an intense and emotional journey during its lean 106 minute running time. It is altogether a remarkable piece of cinema.
Dunkirk is an extraordinary war movie, that eschews the traditional sprawling format of its predecessors, filled with celebrity cameos and contrived expositionary dialogue. Instead Christopher Nolan manages to embrace the concept of “show, don’t tell”, yet uses what little dialogue he has to succinctly punctuate the unfolding story with emotion and gravitas. There is a sense of spectacle, yet it is far from the stark and dispassionate CGI we usually see. Through creative and focused editing Nolan generates a palpable sense of tension, be it in the air with extraordinary aerial dogfights or on the ground as men flee sinking ships and dodge artillery fire. Dunkirk facilitates an intense and emotional journey during its lean 106 minute running time. It is altogether a remarkable piece of cinema.
Dunkirk features a non-linear narrative with three separate stories that overlap, often providing a different perspective upon the other. The Mole follows three infantrymen as they try to jump the queue and find an alternative means off the beach. The Sea is the story of a Father and son who take their family boat to Dunkirk to rescue survivors and how they pick up a “shell shocked” soldier along the way. The Air focuses on three Spitfire pilots as they try to provide cover for the retreating ships. What Dunkirk doesn’t do is wallow in an excess of historical background detail, contrived patriotism or emotional manipulation. There is no Winston Churchill and more importantly no evil Nazis. The enemy remains conspicuously distant either sniping, shelling or dive bombing. Nolan places the audience in the centre of a military disaster, stripped of most of its subjective context. The tension and sense of threat is constant and authentic.
Hans Zimmer scores Dunkirk with discordant ambient tones. It is far from a traditional soundtrack but as stated, Dunkirk is not a traditional war movie. This is not just a movie about a major military defeat but a tale of those souls caught in the middle of it all. They do not have the benefit of historical hindsight and the film is effectively an exploration of men enduring catastrophic events happening around them. However, Dunkirk is not bereft of character development and there are strong performances by Mark Rylance, Cillian Murphy and Tom Hardy. Rather than building complex backstories and playing with our feelings towards the cast, Christopher Nolan creates genuine jeopardy and is not averse to delivering tragedy without the ubiquitous clichéd Hollywood trappings.
A few critics have already accused Dunkirk as being a soulless representation of combat, citing similarities with the set pieces in the Call of Duty video game franchise. Yet this is not the case. Yes, the physical effects are staggering and the films technical excellence is beyond reproach. But there are touches of humanity conveyed through the subtlest use of dialogue or nuanced acting throughout the film. It is there when Mark Rylance tells Cillian Murphy “there’s no hiding from this son, there’s a job do”, and when Tom Hardy perceptibly winces as he realises that despite being low on fuel he cannot leave an allied ship exposed to a German bomber. It is in these honest scenes that Dunkirk finds its greatness. And when the armada of “little ships” finally arrives to strains of Hans Zimmer’s evocative variation of Nimrod, it is profoundly moving.
I suspect that in the same way Saving Private Ryan significantly altered the depiction of war in film back in 1998, Dunkirk may well have a similar effect henceforward. I’m sure some audiences may view the film through the prism of Brexit and vicariously try and champion it as a metaphor for their cause. However, I think that Christopher Nolan’s delineation of this military disaster that was spun in to a political triumph, elevates it above such partisan perspectives. Dunkirk is an intense, gripping and credible view of the nature of war and its impact upon those caught in it. It strength lies in vignettes of human drama set amid an epic and destructive canvas. It is also a compelling drama imbued with a tangible sense of suspense. Cinema seldom gets this good. Go see it on the biggest screen you can find.
Valkyrie (2008)
In terms of its production values, Valkyrie is a throwback to the big budget war films of the sixties and seventies. However, that is where the similarities end. This is not a stylised action movie with the Nazis simply as a dramatic foil. Valkyrie focuses on facts, narrative and performances. Director Bryan Singer ensures that the true story that the film depicts is driven by the central characters. Overall Valkyrie is a very laudable production and although not an outstanding feature film, it is competently made, broadly historically accurate whilst and entertaining.
In terms of its production values, Valkyrie is a throwback to the big budget war films of the sixties and seventies. However, that is where the similarities end. This is not a stylised action movie with the Nazis simply as a dramatic foil. Valkyrie focuses on facts, narrative and performances. Director Bryan Singer ensures that the true story that the film depicts is driven by the central characters. Overall Valkyrie is a very laudable production and although not an outstanding feature film, it is competently made, broadly historically accurate whilst and entertaining.
The story manages to be genuinely suspenseful and conveys the magnitude of the plotter’s intentions. It efficiently follows the facts and is not side-tracked by superfluous sub plots or needless human drama. It clearly shows the real threat to families of the protagonists and conveys the paranoia of the German High command. Valkyrie assumes that the audience has an adequate knowledge of wartime events and does not make the mistake of trying to show why Hitler should be killed. Nor does it make the traditional Hollywood mistake of trying to render the complexities of wartime politics, down to “good Germans versus Bad Nazi”.
With regard to Tom Cruise, I’m not at all interested in his star status, his personal life or his religious beliefs. I have enjoyed his performances in several films in the past and he does not disappoint as Klaus von Stauffenberg. The rest of the ensemble cast works very well. Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson and the dignified Terence Stamp are all on top form, although a little underused. Eddie Izzard further demonstrates his acting talents. It should be noted that the mainly British cast do not attempt any stereotypical German accent but rather opt for neutral dialogue delivery.
Technically, the production design is accurate and authentic. The film manages to convey an atmosphere of a nation losing a war and an “ideology” that has become tarnished. The dilemma of whether to hedge your bets or endeavour to change an impossible situation, is explored efficiently and in a thought provoking way. Valkyrie remains as politically neutral as it can and strives to show career soldiers unhappy with the regime they see as betraying their country. They wish to prove that Germany and Hitler are not the same thing.
It is interesting to see a studio tackle a story that, despite its inherent drama, has an outcome that is a forgone conclusion. Like Ron Howard’s Apollo 13, the need to engage the audience with the fate of the characters is the key to the film’s success. I must admit that I was engrossed in Valkyrie and managed to disconnect my mind from the inevitable ending. However, due to the lack of historical knowledge among so many of today’s viewing public, perhaps this isn’t such an issue. May due to the march of time, the events depicted in Valkyrie may well have less impact. None the less Valkyrie is a competent and polished movie as well as a welcome change from standard multiplex fodder.
The Siege Of Firebase Gloria (1989)
There was a wealth of revisionist Vietnam War films released in the wake of Oliver Stones’ Oscar winning Platoon. Not all were of equal merit or technical competence but occasionally a low budget B movie can surpass the big studio competition. The Siege of Firebase Gloria is one such example, being a minimalist, straightforward film about US Marines defending an isolated outpost in Vietnam, during the Tet offensive. Directed by British expatriate Brain Trenchard-Smith and starring R. Lee Ermey, Wings Hauser and Albert Popwell ("Hey, I've gots to know!"), it’s often been overlooked. However it’s low key plot which seeks no more than to show a small facet of the war, sheds more light upon the overall war and a soldier’s life than one would expect from such a modest production.
There was a wealth of revisionist Vietnam War films released in the wake of Oliver Stones’ Oscar winning Platoon. Not all were of equal merit or technical competence but occasionally a low budget B movie can surpass the big studio competition. The Siege of Firebase Gloria is one such example, being a minimalist, straightforward film about US Marines defending an isolated outpost in Vietnam, during the Tet offensive. Directed by British expatriate Brain Trenchard-Smith and starring R. Lee Ermey, Wings Hauser and Albert Popwell ("Hey, I've gots to know!"), it’s often been overlooked. However it’s low key plot which seeks no more than to show a small facet of the war, sheds more light upon the overall war and a soldier’s life than one would expect from such a modest production.
While on reconnaissance, Sergeant-Major Hafner (R. Lee Ermey) comes across a destroyed village and surmises that "Charlie" is on the move. When the patrol arrives at Firebase Gloria, Hafner takes command from the drug crazed commanding officer and desperately tries to prepare the disorganised base for the impending assault. The chain of command refuses to acknowledge any potential danger and refuses to offer any help. Meanwhile NVA Col. Cao Van prepares his men to swarm and overrun the firebase. He realises that using such a tactic may well provide a favourable result but will inevitably result in a heavy death toll. Such a decision weighs heavily upon him.
The Siege of Firebase Gloria is not your stereotypical flag waver. With clearly drawn characters, a workman like yet amusing script and effective camerawork, the film paints a more vivid and unsettling portrait of the Vietnam War. It also makes its point more effectively than some of the other pretentious movies in the genre. Ermey gives a grounded, genuine performance and it can be argued that he carries the film from the average to the worthy. Wings Hauser is a little over taxed as the burnt out Corporal suffering with PTSD. Albert Popwell provides solid support as the career soldier trying to maintain standards in environment where the "rules" are breaking down. The action scenes are effective and the production strives beyond the confines of its modest budget.
There's nothing remarkable about the central story for The Siege of Firebase Gloria. This is a tale that has been told in various shapes and forms, many times before. However this particular movie explores a siege situation both efficiently and with a noticeable degree of honesty. There are brutalities and error of judgement committed by both sides. Neither is presented in the usual binary terms. The NVA are depicted as simply being soldiers doing a job which in many ways mirrors the Americans. This is a movie eschews the geo-political views of the time and simply focuses on the immediacy of the battle and the impact that it has upon all concerned. As a result The Siege of Firebase Gloria is more than just the sum of its parts and displays a degree of conviction seldom seen in the genre.
The Eagle Has Landed (1976)
The Eagle Has Landed was veteran director John Sturges' final movie, whose body of work includes such classics as Bad Day at Black Rock, The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape. Based on the bestselling book by Jack Higgins and adapted by Tom Mankiewicz, the film is a curious beast. It’s an in-depth character driven drama you would expect from such a veteran director, with the succinct and violent action scenes that were prevalent during the seventies. Although the phrase “they don’t make them like that anymore” is somewhat of a cliché, it is quite apt in the case of The Eagle Has Landed. Many of the crew as well as the producers hailed from the golden age of Hollywood.
The Eagle Has Landed was veteran director John Sturges' final movie, whose body of work includes such classics as Bad Day at Black Rock, The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape. Based on the bestselling book by Jack Higgins and adapted by Tom Mankiewicz, the film is a curious beast. It’s an in-depth character driven drama you would expect from such a veteran director, with the succinct and violent action scenes that were prevalent during the seventies. Although the phrase “they don’t make them like that anymore” is somewhat of a cliché, it is quite apt in the case of The Eagle Has Landed. Many of the crew as well as the producers hailed from the golden age of Hollywood.
The plot involving a unit of Germans infiltrating a coastal village in the guise of Polish soldiers is somewhat reminiscent of Went the Day Well? After the successful rescue of Mussolini, Col.Max Radl (Robert Duvall) is asked to prepare a feasibility study on kidnapping Winston Churchill. Chance intelligence indicates that Churchill will spend a weekend in the Norfolk village of Studley Constable, only a few miles from a deserted stretch of coastline. Suddenly a wild plan made for political reasons, becomes a viable operation. Col.Kurt Steiner (Michael Caine) and his crack unit of Paratroopers are subsequently parachuted into Norfolk to carry out the mission, aided by IRA sympathiser Liam Devlin (Donald Sutherland). They are also assisted by Joanna Grey (Jean Marsh), a German sleeper agent.
Like so many movies of the time, the emphasis is primarily on the plot and the central characters. In the international cut of the movie, we come to understand the full motives of Caine, Sutherland and Marsh. Larry Hagman provides an enjoyable cameo as Col. Pitt, a US officer desperate to see action before being side-lined by politics and the end of the war. Tom Mankiewicz’s screenplay dispenses with the framingstory set in the present featuring an aged Devlin as well as some other less pertinent characters from the original book. The action sequences featured in the second half of the movie and are efficient and credible. The production also takes full advantage of the village of Mapledurham and the surrounding estate, which doubles for the fictitious Studley Constable.
After filming finished in late summer 1976, director John Sturges effectively abdicated his responsibility for the movies post production. Editor Anne V. Coates however managed to fashion a respectable movie from the rough cut, which ran 145 minutes. However the producers wanted a leaner cut with a focus on the action, so the theatrical release was edited further to 135 minutes. This version is the most commonly available and has recently been released on Blu-ray in the US. The longer cut features some interesting additional scenes, several of which bolster the weakest element of the film, namely the romance between Molly Prior (Jenny Agutter) and Devlin.
Watching The Eagle Has Landed, highlights the difference between the depiction of violence during the seventies and how it is portrayed today. Ratings were more flexible and less delineated that they are today. The Eagle Has Landed was a movie that was intended for a wide audience. Yet in contains a fair amount of bullet hits and squib effects that would push it beyond a PG-13 rating these days. The recent Blu-ray release shows the incidental violence quite clearly. In one scene towards the end of the movie, a US Ranger is shot in the arm and the actor next to him is sprayed in the face by stage blood. Nowadays, studios are far more mindful of exactly what can and cannot be depicted for each respective rating and there is a huge amount of creative horse-trading with the MPAA and BBFC with regard to content.
As World War II becomes an increasingly remote event, I am curious as to how such movies as The Eagle Has Landed are perceived by contemporary audiences. Does this period in history have any more significance to today’s viewer, beyond being a convenient plot MacGuffin? Jack Higgins story as well as the movie adaptation hails from a time where the war was very much part of the publics memory. It provided a common experience that was frequently used to explore tales of courage and adventure. The concept of Churchill being assassinated and the impact it would have upon history would have chimed with viewers. However since the seventies, the war movie as a genre has declined. More recent explorations of the subject seem to be couched in far more political terms. If The Eagle Has Landed was made today it may be interpreted in a very different fashion.
Play Dirty (1969)
Gritty, grim and fatalistic are just a few of the ways I would describe Play Dirty. Made at a time when cinema was becoming more realistic and cynical, it eschews the traditional depiction of World War II heroism and paints a singularly unglamorous picture. Due to some minor plot similarities, it is frequently compared to The Dirty Dozen but they are far from identical movies. Robert Aldrich’s film despite having an offbeat plot and a cast of quality characters actors still followed a traditional action based formula and had a relatively upbeat ending. Play Dirty is content to pursue its dour storyline to its inevitable conclusion.
Gritty, grim and fatalistic are just a few of the ways I would describe Play Dirty. Made at a time when cinema was becoming more realistic and cynical, it eschews the traditional depiction of World War II heroism and paints a singularly unglamorous picture. Due to some minor plot similarities, it is frequently compared to The Dirty Dozen but they are far from identical movies. Robert Aldrich’s film despite having an offbeat plot and a cast of quality characters actors still followed a traditional action based formula and had a relatively upbeat ending. Play Dirty is content to pursue its dour storyline to its inevitable conclusion.
Michael Caine plays Captain Douglas of the Royal engineers, who is press-ganged from his cushy position with Anglo-Iranian Oil, into a shady squad of mercenaries who freelance for the British Military. The group is mainly made up of criminals and disgraced soldiers and over seen by Colonel Masters (Nigel Green). Due to Douglas’ lack of field experience he is heavily dependent on Captain Leech (Nigel Davenport), whose only real concern is the £2000 bonus he will be paid if he brings Douglas back alive. Disguised as Italian soldiers the group cross the desert to strike at a fuel dump, hundreds of miles behind enemy lines.
The dialogue in Play Dirty is minimal and succinct. The squad comprising of a Greek narcotics smuggler, a Tunisian terrorist, a convicted rapist, a Turkish smuggler and two homosexual Senussi tribesmen have precious little to say but this does not impede the viewer from understanding the dynamics of the group. The wry looks, sardonic smiles and derisive laughter are more than enough to demonstrate what each man is. The main tension lies between Douglas and Leech, with the former clinging to outmoded notions of gallantry and etiquette. The latter frequently undermines his superior and is sceptical of his abilities. However both become dependent on each other. Douglas uses his engineering savvy to winch their vehicles up a steep incline. Leech saves Douglas when his British dog tags blow their cover.
Veteran director Andre De Toth, who took over when René Clément left the project, does a fine job in driving the movie forward. There is a well implemented battle scene which shows a convoy of trucks and accompanying Jeeps being efficiently dispensed with by entrenched German troops. It plays out wordlessly as the main protagonists look on. The director doesn't balk either at showing the ragtag group of criminals for what they are as they loot all corpses, enemy and allies alike. The arrival of a German nurse also leads to an attempted rape. It all proves to be very challenging for Captain Douglas who still feels bound by the notion that war has rules.
Perhaps the biggest plot element that makes Play Dirty such a product of its time is its ending. The late sixties and early seventies saw a great deal of change in film making and many sacred cows were put to the sword. Play Dirty avoids schoolboy patriotism and opts for something far more bleak. The military goals of the mission prove to be fluid and the chain of command eventually deem the rogue group to be a liability. Betrayal eventually comes from unexpected quarters and hammers home the point that war frequently has little or no honour. Overall the British military of the time are shown to be governed by petty politics and class prejudice. It’s not necessarily a palatable conclusion but it most certainly is credible.
White Tiger (2012)
It is rewarding to find a movie that wrong-foots you and challenges your perceptions on certain subjects. White Tiger is exactly such a film. Starting of as a traditional war movie, the story quickly evolves into a supernatural revenge story with shades of Moby Dick. The final act and subsequent sting in the tail ending provides immense food for thought. It proposes an idea that many will find particularly challenging. However the film succeeds in making such a bold pitch because of its inherent Russian earnestness and the fact that that nation’s war experience is so subtly different from others.
It is rewarding to find a movie that wrong-foots you and challenges your perceptions on certain subjects. White Tiger is exactly such a film. Starting of as a traditional war movie, the story quickly evolves into a supernatural revenge story with shades of Moby Dick. The final act and subsequent sting in the tail ending provides immense food for thought. It proposes an idea that many will find particularly challenging. However the film succeeds in making such a bold pitch because of its inherent Russian earnestness and the fact that that nation’s war experience is so subtly different from others.
White Tiger starts with Russian soldiers find a blackened tank driver in a burnt out wreck with burns to 90% of his body. He miraculously survives and recovers in just three weeks. Remembering nothing of his past life or identity he is renamed Ivan Naydenov (Aleksey Vertkov). He claims to have gained the mystical abilities and to have been charged with the mission of destroying the White Tiger that is decimating Russian tanks. Major Fedotov (Vitaly Kishchenko) reluctantly supports Ivan as he does seem to have uncanny skills in combat. He subsequently assigns to him a customised T-34 along with a sceptical crew who balk at being instructed to attack targets they cannot see. Ivan finally catches up with the allusive Tiger tank in a deserted village but is everything as it seems?
It soon becomes apparent that much of what is happening in White Tiger is not to be taken literally. Both the White Tiger and Ivan himself are symbols. Physical manifestations of war itself, locked in an unending battle; like the human body continuously fighting disease and infection. Finally when the war ends and the Russian POWs are released, Ivan declares that he cannot stop fighting as the White Tiger is still at large. The codicil at the end of the movie shows Hitler calmly discussing the policies he pursued during the war and attempting to justify them. He declares that war is a natural thing and he has simply released a force of nature. “War is fought everywhere and always; it has no beginning and no end. War is life itself”.
Director Karen Shakhnazarov has crafted a singularly enigmatic piece of cinema with White Tiger. It has an eerie quality about it which is not something expected in the war genre. Curiously enough I felt myself reminded of Duel and The Car as well as Herman Melville’s famous novel. The purposely erratic pace of the narrative may not be to everyone’s taste but the performances and prevailing atmosphere are compelling. The ending is a major talking point in itself and I envisage that there will be many discussions and possibly arguments over the many plot elements that are not resolved or explained. However I consider this to be a good thing as cinema has become too much of a passive experience of late. A subject as complex as global war should not be rendered into binary terms; thankfully White Tiger does exactly the opposite.