Telluride 2008 Festival
Advertisement

WarMovieBlog Blog

  • The Bridge at Remagen (1969)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Bridge at Remagen (1969)

    ***.o

    If I had to choose a word to describe 1969's The Bridge at Remagen, it would be *angry*. That's just the feeling I had coming away from this movie. Everyone in this movie is pissed off, all the time. But that doesn't necessarily make for a bad film.

    The Germans have been ordered to destroy the bridge at Remagen rather than have it fall into enemy hands, however, General von Brock (Peter Van Eyck) orders Major Krueger (Robert Vaugn) to keep it open as long as possible, in order to give the retreating Germans a chance to escape.

    Meanwhile, on the Allied side, Lt. Hartman (George Segal) and his squad, led by Sgt. Angelo (Ben Gazzara) are charged with preventing said destruction, and of course, all hell breaks loose.

    In typical 60's angry fashion, just when you think its over, its not, and the real massacre starts. The Germans make a last ditch effort to blow the bridge, but it fails. Practially everyone dies in the ensuing fight on both sides, and the Allies finally get some reinforcements and blow the Nazis all to hell, taking a few key prisoners. You have to love the equally cynical closing plates, where they tell us (paraphrased) "None of it mattered, since the bridge collapsed of its own accord a few weeks later...."

    But the anger is just too much to handle! Hartman is pissed because he doesn't want this command, or this mission. Angelo is just pissed, well, I guess because he's there. He loots the bodies of the dead and just walks around sneering and growling all the time with that stereotypical chewed-up cigar in his teeth. Not 'til the end where he has to dispatch a young Hitler Youth sniper does he really display any sort of emotion other than angst, and it actually works here.

    If you're after a good old-fashioned war movie, with lots of gunfire, tanks, explosions, and the stereotypical soldier-types on both sides, then The Bridge at Remagen is right up your alley. I can't really say that anyone's performance really stands out as either spectacular or subpar. Although for some reason I'm not quite buying Vaughn's performance as the German Major. Maybe its his total lack of an accent when all the Germans around him seem to carry one, or that whole "Man from Uncle" spectre that kept creeping into my head... I dunno, I just think that role was miscast.

    One thing that did drive me absolutely insane about this picture was the reliance, and dare I say overuse of the stock war sound effects reels. Maybe this is just a product of the technology available, but after the umpteenth time you hear that same, "KaPOW!" explosion (you know the one I mean) and the "PewPewPew!" machine gun ricochet effect (yeah, that one! The one that sounds like a metal cable getting "twanged") it really gets old, to the point of almost funny.

    All gripes aside, The Bridge at Remagen stands as an example of the perfect "middle of the road" popular war movie. Not bad, but not particularly great, either. I'm not sure I'd watch it again, but I am glad I got to see it.

    A side note, the aspect ratio on the DVD I watched appeared to be messed up somehow. When it started, I was thinking, "Aw, cool! Cinemascope!" (2.66:1) but it turns out it was just "squashed" vertically and I had to tweak the view on my TV to show it in the proper 2.35:1 ratio. It wasn't just a case of 4:3 vs 16:9, but something different. A minor gripe.

    The Bridge at Remagen (1969) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Civil War Films of the Silent Era (1913,1915)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Coward  (1915)

    Granddad  (1913)

    Civil War Films of the Silent Era (1913,1915)


    Sometimes you just have to go back, and I mean way back for some interesting war movie action.

    Well, maybe not action so much, but the 2000 issue of Civil War Films of the Silent Era takes us back to the time before World War I, before the notion of a "war movie" had even become ingrained in our culture. These three films provide an interesting perspective, but still seem to carry similar themes you'd see today. I'll cover each of these separately, and then end with my complaints about this nearly-excellent collection....

    The Drummer of the 8th (1913) (Spout, IMDB)

    The Drummer is a sad story about sacrifice. A young drummer wants so badly to join up with the Union army, and join his older brother, that he runs away from home. He does manage to join up, although in a different unit, and heads off to war. He writes a letter to his parents saying "I'll be back through that way with the regiment soon! I'll see you then!"

    What really happens is that he winds up getting himself killed. As his family, brother included, prepare a big celebration, and are anxiously awaiting the return of their boy.... The union train shows up and the soldiers deliver instead a flag-draped casket *to their front door*

    Eeek. How's that for a statement?

    BONUS! I went back and found this on YouTube! Check out Drummer of the 8th for yourself!!




    The Coward (1915) (Spout, IMDB)


    The longest of the three films, and quite honesly the best, was The Coward. The story follows one rich southern boy, (whose father was a decorated Colonel) as he struggles with the choice between duty and sacrifice vs. self-preservation. As the Confederacy holds a recruiting drive in his town, he chickens out, but is forced to enlist, nearly at gunpoint, by his father. While on patrol, he's spooked by a rabbit, and then a wandering farmer, and flees back to his home and his mother's arms.

    His father, rather than face the shame of having a deserter and coward in the family, packs up and decides to go back in his son's place. "A Winslow will answer at roll call tomorrow!"

    When the Union marches through town, and occupies his home, he overhears the officers describing a weakness in the lines. With this information, he realizes that he can help the Confederate cause, and rushes off to give the information and a stolen map to the Rebel general. In the process, he winds up in Union uniform, and, as irony would have it, is shot and wounded by his father.

    Eventually, his father learns that he's shot his son, and it isn't until he learns of his heroic deed does he come around and accept his son back to his arms.

    Really not a bad story, I have to admit, and particularly well-executed.

    Granddad (1913) (Spout, IMDB)


    Granddad was the most difficult of the three to wrap my head around. Really this film isn't about "the war" but rather about its veterans, which is kind of a compelling theme for such an early picture. You also gain a little insight into the period....

    The short version: Old whiskey-drinking Granddad (A Union vet) gets run off by his son's new wife, one of these religious-types who is fervently anti-liqour (pre-prohibition politics anyone?) He winds up in the poorhouse working in the dirt.

    Meanwhile, a wounded Confederate veteran comes around looking for Grandpa. It seems that during the war, "Jebus" (yeah, thats his name!) saved his life when he was wounded, rather than kill him. He's come back to pay his respects, and he (through a flashback) tells the story to the rest of the good-old-boys at the local establishment.

    Well, as fate goes, Granddad is discovered by the "wife" and his doting granddaughter at the poorhouse, right about the same time the old Rebel finds him. Unfortunately he's just suffered a heart attack (or something equally bad) and is on his death bed.

    He's buried with full military honors, in quite an impressive display for such an old (and short) film.

    The problems with this set? First off, the sound. These are silent films, and as such, they would have been shown with either no accompaniment at all, a live person on a piano, a phonograph recording, or maybe even a 'player' piano reel. Unfortunately, the producers of this compilation give the films a full-on orchestra sound track, and at times (especially for Drummer) use an electronic-y sounding piece. Dudes! If you're going to do this, do it right!! They even went so far as to add really bad pops and whistles as sound effects during the battle scenes. Now, I'm no expert on silent films by any stretch, but I think that's taking it a bit far. I'd think at best there might have been a guy making his own sounds as the film played, but, brother.

    The Coward was the best of the transfers by far, it looked really spectacular. The other two... well, I noticed a lot of "color noise" in the picture, which usually indicates a poor-quality digitization. One thing that struck me about these as well, was the change in "tint" between scenes. Again, not being a silent film expert, I really didn't understand this.

    Let me explain a bit further. During night scenes, for example, the picture would take on a bluish hue, when things were candle-lit, everything turned sort of red. I could conceivably see this happening for real, as something added during the production of the reel itself, but it looked like a digital add-on. I really can't say, because I just don't know.

    And one thing that had me scratching my head was how few "dialog" plates there were! The few silent films I've ever seen have had a lot of dialog shown inbetween scenes, and all three of these were especially empty in that respect. The first and third had all of the scenes titled, and The Coward had some dialog, with some information on a few screens. The end result is that you had to infer a lot (or read some lips) to really figure out what's happening.

    So, Civil War Films of the Silent Era turns out to be an educational experience more than anything. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in the history of war movies, or a student of film history. I'd even go as far as saying you might recommend this to your school history teachers, as part of the Civil War lessons.


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Japan's Longest Day (Nihon no ichiban nagai hi, 1968)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Nihon No Ichiban Nagai Hi  Production Year

    Japan's Longest Day (Nihon no ichiban nagai hi, 1968)

    ****o

    Japan's Longest Day deals with the surrender of Japan at the end of World War II. What makes this movie particularly interesting is the perspective, that of the Japanese. I didn't know what to expect from this film going in, and I have to say I was surprised, intrigued, educated, and even a bit entertained.

    Based on the true events following the Allies' Potsdam Declaration, we witness the events in between that event, and the ground-breaking broadcast of the Emperor's voice over the radio, finally declaring the Japanese defeat.

    What I was totally unaware of (or at least I totally forgot!) was the division and strife the decision to accept an (almost) unconditional surrender caused. What we see here is the story of this division, leading up to a failed coup attempt by members of the Imperial guard and other factions of the military.

    Culturally speaking, Japan's Longest Day shows the Japanese' varied reactions to the event. From the die-hard factions of the military, hell bent on continuing the war to the last man, to the Emperor and his cabinet, reluctantly willing to concede defeat in order to preserve the nation as a whole.... This aspect of the picture was most interesting to me, as its a viewpoint we Americans will rarely, if ever see. The crushing blow to the Japanese "spirit" was certainly evident, as members of the cabinet weep uncontrollably as the Emperor cedes his "god like" status and allows his voice to be heard by the nation. You begin to understand what the surrender meant to the people of Japan, and what it must have felt like.

    What is missing from the picture is the events after the Emperor's declaration, such as the signing of the surrender onboard the USS Missouri, and any mention of the government's attempts to cover up evidence of war crimes. Although we do see them burning piles and piles of documents, its never said what these are (at least that I could tell.)

    What we do find is a certain amount of "pride" in the nation of Japan, despite their defeat. Given the source I will say that I'll give them that. The aspects of building a new, peaceful Japan finally come out in the end, thankfully. Along with the statement that Japan should never have to endure another humiliating blow such as this. What you won't find is any sort of "yeah, we were wrong" statement, which is a little troublesome.

    If you're not a fan of subtitles, then you'll probably want to stay away from Japan's Longest Day. There are a lot of subtitles to take in. From the dialog, to on-screen translation of every name, date, and place, and even signage, that appears. I had to actually rewind a few times so I could read both the dialog translation and the additional text, there's that much at times. That sort of thing doesn't bother me, but it can be troublesome for others.

    Putting all the history and facts aside, it stands quite well as a "political thriller" type of film. In fact there are a couple of places it delves into the realm of the stereotypical samurai-movie action, while it may just be a byproduct of the special effects technology available at the time, it comes across as a little gratuitous.

    There are a few faces which will be familiar to followers of Japanese films, such as the eternally excellent Toshiro Mifune as the War Minister Anami, and more which would show up quite prominently in Tora!, Tora!, Tora! later on.

    Japan's Longest Day may prove slightly difficult to watch, depending on your viewpoints and opinions that we as Americans have come to accept and believe over the last sixty years or so, but its a must-see if you're at all interested in the opposite perspective. I firmly believe that Japan's Longest Day succeeds in spades at this where current American attempts, like Letters From Iwo Jima, fail.

    Japan's Longest Day (Nihon no ichiban nagai hi, 1968) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

    ****.

    Before I start, I should mention that I had never seen Lawrence of Arabia before today. Not even a hint of it. Why not? Sure I've heard how great it was, but because of its length I've never been able to wrangle the opportunity. Until today.

    Lawrence of Arabia is the very definition of a "movie epic." It's probably in the dictionary. From the sheer length (nearly four hours!) to the scope of the vision, the camera work, the story, the characters.... It really is that good. You might be saying, "But I thought you hated long movies!" Not so at all. Only when they are too long for their own good do I not care for it.

    But I would say that the nearly four-hour length of Lawrence of Arabia isn't nearly long enough. In fact when it was over I was saying to myself, "That's it? Where's the rest of the story?!"

    What you have here is the "hollywood" true story of Thomas Edward Lawrence (Peter O'Toole), an officer in the British army stationed in the middle east during World War I. His cavalier attitude gets him transferred out of the Cairo office to be a liaison to Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness) and help unite the Arab tribal armies under the British flag against the Turks.

    What happens instead is Lawrence becomes more involved with the Arab cause than the British cause, and with the help of tribal leaders Sherif Ali (Omar Sharif) and Auda Abu Tayi (Anthony Quinn) eventually leads the Arabs to take the city of Damascus from the Turks, and also away from the British.

    Helping inflate the image of Lawrence is a Chicago newpaper reporter, Jackson Bentley (Arthur Kennedy), who reports back on Lawrence's "freedom fighting" activities....

    But ultimately this picture is not about the war, or the Arab cause, or any of that. I think it is a story about humility. Or dare I say, lack thereof. We see Lawrence go from the cocky and disrespectful officer, to learning his place in the Arab camps, to becoming their leader. Subsequently he's beaten back down (quite literally) from his "high horse" position and finally sees the larger picture. Ironically its his same cavalier-ness (is that a word) that winds up getting him killed. In between he has to deal with entities such as Prince Faisal, who despite his position, seems to maintain a certain level of humility that Lawrence does not, to the two "outcast" boys he takes on as his servants, only to lose both of them in unfortunate accidents.

    There isn't a frame of film shot in the length of this film that is meaningless, either. Every single shot seems to be quite purposefully and artfully set up. From the truly epic images of hundreds of horse-bound warriors, to closeups.... Nothing is wasted. The DVD I viewed (the 2002 "single disc" edition) was an excellent restoration. The original 70mm source quality shines through. I'm to understand that there has been further work done on the film for a recent HD release, presumably this will make its way to Blu-Ray. If you need a reason to jump on that bandwagon, this will be it.

    The score is equally grand and epic, but never manages to overshadow the film as can sometimes happen. The "prelude" to the film, where there is nothing but an empty screen and the score plays, introduces us to the main themes in the soundtrack in a "concert hall" like fashion. I can't imagine today's audiences caring much for it, and normally I would have balked at the idea, but once you really listen to it, the score is absolutely amazing.

    What is also evident is the concept of the failing of the British Empire. The theme is unavoidable. On the one hand it seems to dispouse the "arrogance" of the British viewpoint toward "the natives", but yet we still have a portrayal like Quinn's character, the coarse, greedy, arrogant and mostly ignorant tribesman. Contrast still with the refined presence of the other tribesman as portrayed by Sharif, and even their Prince. Difficult to say what they're trying to present, if anything at all. Balance? Your guess is as good as mine.

    If you've never witnessed Lawrence of Arabia, like I hadn't, then you are truly missing out. Just like reading Dickens, listening to Mozart, or visiting the Eiffel Tower, taking in a masterpiece such as this has to be done, at least once in your life.

    (I'm also classifying this as both "World War I" and "Other" due to it falling into both categories, I'm not sure which would be more appropriate!)

    Lawrence of Arabia (1962) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • The Longest Day (1962)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Longest Day  (1962)

    The Longest Day (1962)

    ****o

    In some respects, 1962's The Longest Day could be considered "The Longest Movie," because quite frankly at times it is just that. Long. Weighing in at 178 minutes, it certainly is that.

    Chronicling the D-Day invasion of Normandy on June 6th, 1944, The Longest Day could best be placed into the "docudrama" category. From the initial, bad weather, days before the invasion, we see events and people on both sides of the channel. The Allies waiting out the weather in anticipation of the invasion, and the Germans on the other side, internally divided on where the invasion will happen and what to do about it.

    What you end up with is a rather "textbook" picture of things. From a historical point of view, with a generous amount of artistic license thrown in, The Longest Day succeeds brilliantly at capturing most of the events surrounding D-Day. From the British glider missions, the scattered American paratroopers, the involvement of the French resistance, and even the division in the Reich's ranks, and the lone two Luftwaffe pilots who managed to get involved.... Pretty much every angle is covered.

    You'll also find one of the more realistic looks at the beach invasion, at least what they would allow in 1962. Sure its no Saving Private Ryan, but I think you'll take away the same feelings from this portrayal that you would there. The feelings of desparation, the cringing at the amount of life that was laid down....

    But the problem here is just one of scope. On the one hand you've got an epic film that tries to tell all the different stories, and does just that. On the other hand, you've got a film that tries to tell just too many different stories, and really doesn't get deep enough into any particular one to really make a difference.

    The entire film is just one "event" or "famous name" after another, with little to connect them all except the umbrella of Operation Overlord. Most of the film is spent in "chronicle" mode, and it's really not until the end, where British Flight Officer Campbell (Richard Burton) encounters a lost Airborne (was that Paul Anka's character?) and they trade opinions. "He's dead, I'm crippled, and you're lost. Sort of fitting don't you think?" That's about the only real exploration of what any of this means to anyone.

    Famous faces abound, from Eddie Albert, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, and the aforementioned Richard Burton and Paul Anka, to a much younger Sean Connery and Red Buttons.

    As a sweeping epic with a certain documentary aspect to it, The Longest Day is a masterful bit of film. Covering just about any angle and "sub plot" to the invasion, from the unfortunate Airborne drop into the town square, to the involvement of Gen. Ted Roosevelt, son of the Teddy Roosevelt and cousin to FDR. I can see why this film is highly thought of by veterans of the war, and the invasion.

    But quite frankly it is just quite long and a little too involved. I could see this movie being even better if it were still longer, and we were given a chance to connect with any of the characters... or if it were shorter and less inclusive, focusing more on a particular story than trying to encompass them all.

    I still give The Longest Day high marks as a war movie classic. This should definitely be on your "must see" list, but be prepared to endure long spells of nothing much in particular happening. Maybe that's the whole point.... "Hurry up and wait?" Quite possibly!

    The Longest Day (1962) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Stop-Loss (2008)

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Stop-Loss  (2007)

    Stop-Loss (2008)

    ***oo

    When you go into a movie expecting less, and wind up getting way more, that's usually a good thing (I need to start watching every film this way!) and Stop-Loss is no exception.

    Honestly, from what I'd heard I was expecting a Redacted-style bash-fest. Thank God that's not what I found. Stop-Loss is a film that, at its core, could have been made in 1991, 1969, 1952, or 1945. Its a story about the veteran coming home, and the trials he faces as he returns a changed man, to a world that he vaguely remembers, but no longer quite fits in the same way. Alright, I'll concede that there is another aspect to the story of Stop-Loss, but we'll get to that later, as it really isn't that important to getting the most from this picture.

    After errantly leading his squad into an ambush in Iraq (even I was like, "Don't drive into the alley! It's a trap! Duh!) and losing a few of his men, Staff Sergeant Brandon King (Ryan Phillippe) returns home to his west-Texas hometown with his soldiers-in-arms and friends Steve (Channing Tatum), Tommy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and "Eyeball" (Rob Brown.) He and his buds are hailed as heroes, a role which they really don't seem to fit.

    The first night back it's painfully clear that these guys returned different from when they left. From Steve's drunken flashback, digging a foxhole in his girlfriend Michelle's (Abbie Cornish) front yard, to Tommy, who drinks himself into a stupor from which he'll never return. Both of these guys wind up on the outs with their girlfriends, which only complicates matters.

    Still there is Brandon, who remains the most level-headed among them. He's done, you see. His tour is up, and he's ready to return to life on the ranch. But Uncle Sam has other ideas, and the drama begins. He's "a victim" of the military's "Stop Loss" policy, which basically means that they've got him and there's nothing he can do about it. Furious that he'll have to return to Iraq and face more of the same, he blows up at his CO, and makes a run for it as he's led to the brig.

    He and Steve's Ex, Michelle decide to make the road trip to Washington, to find the Senator who pinned the Bronze Star on his chest. But now that he's AWOL, and a fugitive, nobody seems to want to help him, and after a few episodes and mis-adventures, he eventually returns home....

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of the above really matters. This isn't about the road-trip to DC. It's about returning from war, and dealing with the evil and terrible things you've had to deal with, and be a part of. From Steve's decision to continue his military career and start sniper school, to Tommy's eventual suicide, and Brandon's running from his situation.... That's what its about. That's what you should take away from the movie. All the political crap that starts the picture, the whole "stop-loss policy sucks" thing, and the closing frames where the film is basically ruined by a couple of title frames whining about said policy.

    Speaking of the end of the picture. Maybe I missed something, but I just don't understand it. (Spoiler Warning!) We really needed to get some insight into why King decided to turn himself in and resign his fate to the Army. The "thousand-yard stare" while he's sitting on the bus, with even more fresh recruits from his hometown really doesn't tell us anything. Did he just decide that he couldn't run forever? That he couldn't leave his family? After all of that, he just says, "Er, yeah, you're right, my bad" and goes back to "the shit?" I just don't get it. Maybe its supposed to be up to us to figure out why he did it, if so it just didn't work for me.

    Stop-Loss is a well-acted film. Performances are good all around, for the most part. Nobody inparticular comes to mind as standing out as bad, anyway. I also have to drop kudos to the writers and director, for not letting Brandon and Michelle get romantically involved. I thought for sure that they'd head down that road and make a distracting complication to the story. Thanks. (Actually this point is touched on during the "deleted scenes" commentary on the DVD.)

    Watch Stop-Loss for the drama of the story, in that respect its a very good film, but only if you ignore the "premise" of it all.

    Stop-Loss (2008) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement