Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

WarMovieBlog Blog

  • 84 Charlie MoPic (1989)

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

    84 Charlie Mopic  (1989)

    84 Charlie MoPic (1989)

    ***.o

    Well, I finally managed to, um, find a way to watch this in its entirety, and quite frankly its not quite as good as I remembered.  But 84 Charlie MoPic is still a decent, little-known (and incredibly hard to come by) film about a squad during the Vietnam war, being "documented" by an army cameraman as they go on patrol in the jungle....

    First off, I just have to say this:  Brian DePalma should have used this as a reference for his similar but just-plain-awful faux-documentary Redacted.  If you're going to do it, do it right.

    That being said, there really isn't anything all that spectacular about 84C.  The acting is not terrible, but not particularly wonderful either.  The only familiar face I recognized was that of a younger Glenn Morshower (Pierce from "24")....  Yet despite that shortcoming, somehow this film manages to keep you engaged, and you're able to connect with the characters and feel what they're feeling.  And yeah, the "short" jokes get a little tiresome, and a bit forced (sorry Zack!)....

    What you do have is a rather diverse group of men (albeit stereotypes), who under normal conditions "back home" likely wouldn't have anything to do with each other.  Still they are able to band together, and as they one-by-one fall for various reasons, the bond they share becomes obvious.  And by the end, even MoPic has been accepted into their group, albeit a little too late.

    Part of the reason 84 Charlie MoPic "gets it right" despite the production, is the attention to detail, and it appears they got Mr. Dale Dye to advise on this one (listen for him on the radio!)

    All-in-all, if you want a glossy Hollywood rendition of things, then you might as well forget it.  But as a decent indy effort it really does the job well.

    And it figures, the whole bleeding thing appears to be on YouTube if you want to follow the pieces.  Here's a chunk for your amusement....


    84 Charlie MoPic (1989) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Johnny Got His Gun (1971)

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

    Johnny Got His Gun (1971)

    ****o

    Johnny Got His Gun is a mostly little-known movie, which would be even more obscure if it weren't for Metallica's "One" music video back in the day.  But forget about that for a minute.

    What you get here is a surreal trip into one man's nightmare after suffering extensive injuries on the battlefields of World War I... and a biting anti-war film to boot.

    "Johnny" is really Joe Bonham, who does his civic duty and goes off to Europe to fight in the trenches.  He literally blown to bits by an inbound shell, losing his arms, legs, and face, losing all senses except touch.  He survives, and becomes a medical curiosity to the upper brass.  He's kept alive, and in his sensory-deprived state, we get to go on some rather odd journeys down memory lane, among others.

    Really I don't want to spoil too much of it, because I think you really have to experience it for yourself.  Between his remembrances of his father, who apparently loved his fishing pole more than Joe, to his matrix-like train station conversations with Jesus (a trippy Donald Sutherland), and the absolute terror portrayed as he tries to figure out what is happening to him....  It's just brilliant.  Yeah I know I said something before about it being not-so-much, but on another viewing I've changed my mind.

    The only problem I think exists with the amount of anti-war "preaching" that goes on.  Some of it is just so obvious and "in your face" that it comes across wrong.  Take for example the bit with he and his father talking about Democracy....  While it might be true to a point, its almost pretentious. 

    But...  I guess that's to be expected given the time it was made, right at the height of the Vietnam war and all. (Especially if you take a gander at the poster art...) I think it probably serves as a metaphor for that war more than anything.  Viewed in that respect it also adds another layer of depth to it.

    Johnny Got His Gun is a mind-trip, that's for sure, but I have to recommend it.

    Johnny Got His Gun (1971) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • No Man is an Island

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

    No Man is an Island

    **ooo

    Anyone who thinks the Hollywood "Formula" picture is a new or recent creation is fooling themselves.  No Man is and Island is a direct ancestor of todays average fare, and unfortunately it just ain't that good.

    As the Japanese rout the Allies from the South Pacific in the early days of WWII, George Tweed (Geoffrey Hunter) managed to escape the invading Empire on Guam, and was able to hide out until the Allies eventually returned.

    What could have been a harrowing tale of survival ends up being, well, just meh.  From the greatly exaggerated stereotypes of the natives and the Japanese, to the incredibly forced love story between Tweed and one of the natives....  There isn't much to do but sit back and roll your eyes waiting for something really interesting to happen.

    The actual invasion scenes aren't very well executed.  His initial escapees are all eliminated save for George, but not very compellingly...  I don't think I'll go on.

    You might give No Man is an Island a go if you've got nothing better to do on a Saturday afternoon... but frankly I dont' think I'd do it again.

    No Man is an Island on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • The Children of Huang Shi (2008)

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

    The Children of Huang Shi (2008)

    ****o

    OK, lets take a bit of a different take on events in Asia during the early part of World War II....

    The Japanese are rolling through China and Manchuria in 1937, and to top it off, China itself has its own problems between the Communists and the Partisans....

    Caught in the middle are a group of children holed up in an orphanage.  By a twist of fate, they and their part-time attendant Ms. Pearson (Radha Mitchell) are brought together with an English journalist, George Hogg (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) and Chinese partisan Chen Hansheng (Chow Yun-Fat).

    As Hogg is thrust into the role of taking care of these children, it becomes clear that they must abandon their orphanage and head for neutral territory.  But this means marching on foot across some rather difficult terrain, and through Japanese and hostile Chinese outposts.  The journey, as they say, is more than the destination, and this film proves it spectactularly.

    OK, so maybe its not a "war movie" in the traditional sense.  But it is still a damn fine film regardless.  It's complex and engaging in about every way I can think of, it'll make you laugh, cry, cringe, and think about an aspect of the war that we in the west don't very often.

    The Children of Huang Shi will probably never get the real respect it deserves, and thats unfortunate.  Check it out when you get the chance! Here's the trailer....


    The Children of Huang Shi (2008) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • The Wind That Shakes The Barley (2007)

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

    The Wind That Shakes The Barley (2007)

    ****o

    There are war movies that make you cringe.  Either because of the violence or the atrocities portrayed, or the sheer evil that is shown....  and then there are films like The Wind That Shakes The Barley, which make you cringe for some of the above reasons, but for other reasons a little less obvious.

    The most obvious of which is that a country that we 'mercans hold in such high regard, namely the UK, could exact such a toll on such a nearby and similar neighbor, namely Ireland.  Yeah you could draw a similar (but not identical) parallel to the US Civil War, and I'll get to that, but there's just something about the way the situation in Ireland is brought to life in this film that leaves you asking yourself some questions.

    Of course, this film explores the war between the Irish and the British during the 1920's.  Namely the Irish want the Brits out, and want independence.  Of course the Brits won't have it, and a band of men form together and fight back guerrila style against the English oppressors.

    Just as the battle seems to be won, and a treaty is drafted, two of these brothers split.  One, Teddy (Dadraic Delaney) on the side of the newly formed, yet still mostly British government and the other, Damien (Cillian Murphy), on the side of principle.

    "Barley" is a decidely gloomy picture.  I really can't say there was much to remember as being "uplifting" about it.  There's no victory, no celebration really to speak of.  The whole thing oozes of desperation on the part of the Republicans.  And that's probably just how it should be.

    The whole "brother vs. brother" thing has been explored before in films, mostly in regard to the US Civil War, the north vs. south dividing families, but I can't say I've seen a better portrayal of that than here.  In fact the ending (and I won't ruin it here) should leave you shocked and saddened.  It should.

    The Wind That Shakes The Barley is another one of those movies that we weren't really exposed to here in the states, and in fact the conflict within is one that we here tend to not understand, or simplify in terms that really aren't correct....  If you're at all interested in the roots of the conflict, which carried on through well into the latter part of the 20th century (and some would argue still today) then you need to watch this movie.  Yes, it is slanted heavily towards the Republican side of things, and not knowing everything I can't say how much is truth and how much is "propaganda" for lack of a better term... but its a good, thought-provoking, heart-twisting war movie nonetheless.

    The Wind That Shakes The Barley (2007) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • The Purple Heart (1944)

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

    The Purple Heart  (1944)

    The Purple Heart (1944)

    **ooo

    The Purple Heart is of course the medal given to servicemen wounded in the line of duty.  The movie of the same name, really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the medal.  At least not what I could tell.

    What it is, though is a perfect example of a World War II "propaganda" movie, again, for lack of a better term.

    A Bomber crew is taken captive by the Japanese after they crash land in China after the infamous Doolittle raid.  What follows in this film is their "trial" by the Japanese, witnessed by a group of international journalists.

    But the entire thing is just plain ridiculous to watch.  I can't think of a good way to say it.  Everyone is caricatured in blazing stereotypes so thick you'd need an axe to get through it.  From the Japanese, to the Chinese governor and his son, to the German reporters covering the trial (who seem to be there just to cement the fact that we're dealing with Axis powers, not simply Japanese ones....)  they're all laughably over the top.

    And unfortunately the same goes for our "heroes" the bomber crew.  Headed by Capt. Ross (Dana Andrews) they are so unbelievably gung-ho patriotic to the very end, that it hurts more than helps.  It also doesn't hurt the patriotic cause of the film to have our men tortured at every opportunity.  And of course, who should arrive but a Swiss delegate from the Red Cross to help bring some civility to these heathens.... sigh.

    On the one hand, you've got to realize that films like this exist.  They're not inherently bad, and historically speaking they went a long way towards keeping the folks at home in that "fighting spirit" that we needed to see the thing through.  Inaccurate, overplayed, you name it, its there in spades.

    On the other hand, we look back now on stuff like this with such a negative view, it almost makes me feel guilty to rail on it.  I've seen better examples, that aren't nearly as crazy.  But The Purple Heart is just so textbook in this respect I just can't help it.  Points for effort, and for "the thought that counts," but brother, tone it down a bit!

    Unfortunately I can't seem to locate a clip or anything at the moment.... you'll just have to take my word for it.

    The Purple Heart (1944) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • The Dam Busters (1955)

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

    The Dam Busters  (1954)

    The Dam Busters (1955)

    ****o

    You'd think that a film about developing a one-off weapon that defies all logic would be incredibly un-interesting, right?  Wrong!! The Dam Busters takes a look at one of the more ingenious weapons devised and implemented during World War II, and then follow the men who had to deploy the thing in action....

    Alright, so it does start off a little bit dull.  Doctor Wallis (Michael Redgrave) has come up with a weapon that will destroy the incredibly fortified dams which power the Ruhr valley in Germany, the heart of the war machine's industry.  The problem is how to make the bloody thing work.  He devises a series of tests and experiments, which culminate in another series of "live" tests, until his concept is proven.

    In proving this concept we also get a fairly accurate look at how testing and experiments should be done.  Not so much of the usual Hollywood shenanigans here, I actually believed it here.  And the rest of the delivery mechanics are shown in a way that also make sense scientifically.  You have to love it.

    The concept is what exactly you ask?  Well, in short, he's come up with a bomb that will skip along the surface of the water until it hits the dam, sinks below water level, and blows up there, causing significantly more damage there than other spots.  The problem of course is getting the thing to bounce correctly!

    The other problem is how to deliver the thing correctly, so it doesn't fall short, or skip completely over.  That's the other half of this movie:  Guy Gibson's (Richard Todd) bomber wing who must retrain themselves to fly incredibly fast at just the right speed and altitude, and release this weapon at exactly the right time with their specially developed bomb sights....

    And yes, its all true.  There actually was such a device, and it was actually used to great effect, which makes this movie a monument to Allied ingenuity, perseverance, and bravery on the part of the pilots who had to pull the thing off.  AND it actually is interesting, and not so much in the PBS documentary way either.  You will start rooting for Dr. Wallis and Commander Gibson, and you'll be cheering as the things hit their mark.

    A couple of curious side notes.  1)  Fans of the original Star Wars movie might start to feel a little deja vu as you watch the bombing scenes.  In fact these scenes served as both inspiration and reference for the Death Star Trench run scene.   2)  Fans of the film, Pink Floyd's The Wall will instantly recognize a few scenes as having shown up on the TV screen in that film.  Now that I get the reference, those parts make even more sense!

    The Dam Busters is just a fun AND educational bit of film, that I can't recommend enough!


    The Dam Busters (1955) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1997)

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

    Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1997)

    ****o

    2006's Rescue Dawn was the story of US Navy pilot Dieter Dengler, as he was shot down over Vietnam, and his successful escape from the POW camp, the only person ever to achieve such a feat.

    Little Dieter Needs to Fly is a documentary of that same story, told from the man himself, Dieter Dengler.  And if there was ever a more engaging, interesting, and just plain curious documentary, or individual, for that matter, I think I've yet to see it.

    Told entirely by Mr. Dengler, he revisits the locations involved in his story, and with amazing clarity and presence of mind, recounts the story in great detail.  To be quite honest, I was simply amazed at his ability to put himself back into those situations, back into shackles, and walking through the jungle.  All this while (at least for the camera) maintaining a bizarre and seemingly out-of-place sense of humor about the whole thing.

    In fact, in my review of Rescue Dawn, I noted that the movie seemed to be a little too light-hearted for the situation.  But after seeing "Little Dieter" I think I fully understand why it was this way.

    In any case, Little Dieter Needs to Fly will glue you to your screen, make you laugh, move you to tears, and introduce you to one of the real heroes of the Vietnam war.  Of course he would deny that, but I'll let you be the judge....

    Here's a little clip, I hope you can see what I mean from this one....

    Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1997) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray)

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

    Valkyrie  (2008)

    Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray)

    ***oo

    In 1944, a segment of the German Army was fed up with what Hitler was doing to the country, and put into motion a series of events that nearly resulted in success.  Nearly.

    Valkyrie is a telling of that story.  Revolving around Col. Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) we see the events unfold from his days in North Africa, until his execution (spoilers? you know how it ended!) after the failed attempt on Hitler's life in the "Wolf's Lair" bunker....

    Alright, so Valkyrie really isn't a "war movie" per-se, lets just get that over with right now.  I'd classify it more along the lines of "mystery/thriller/docudrama" more than anything.  If you're looking for action and scenes of combat, this isn't it.  The story is intriguing, and this telling really is engaging, but the truth is, we know how its going to end, so its like watching someone build a model or put together a puzzle that we know what the end result will be.

    Performance wise I have to say that nobody really stands out as having a really good day.  The cast goes through all the right motions and they act like good staunch Germans... but I can't really recall anything that stood out as great.  There are a lot of familiar faces, to be sure, too many to try to list.  And the potrayals of the Nazi high command seem to be cardboard cutouts of their stereotypes, Hitler included.  He is portrayed here as a forgetful, absent-minded putz, rather than a raving lunatic.

    The production however is another story, brilliantly pulled off, and quite epic at times.  The shots of the Berlin "government quarter" with the rows of flags and such are really quite good.  Most everything else, however takes place behind closed doors, or behind the fences of the Wolf's Lair....  With the notable exception of the well-done attack scene at the beginning.  The HD Master audio sound was brilliant, but at times the quiet scenes were, well, too quiet.  And there were a lot of them.

    What really drove me nuts though, and I've noticed this on a few new Blu-ray releases, was the presence of (for lack of a better term) low light digital noise in some of the darker scenes.  It was obvious these scenes were shot in HD video rather than on film, and this difference was even more noticable when the edit would change to a similar scene without the noise.  I would think that these things could be cleared up during post.  Or maybe it was just my equipment, I'm not sure.  I didn't see it on the big screen, or on regular DVD, so I can't comment on whether or not it was there all along, but the fact it came and went, and only on certain shots lead me to the conclusion that someone cheaped out bigtime.

    The other part of it is that in order to actually "get into" the film, you need to somehow find it within yourself to side with Stauffenberg and the rest of the dissenting Germans.  Depending on your prejudices that might be a tricky task.  It would help if there were really something more to grab on to.  I kept hoping there would be more exploration of how these decisions affected his family.  But alas, we are only given a fleeting glimpse into that as he hunkers in the bomb shelter with them, and as his wife is leaving for safer shelter....

    Ultimately I think Valkyrie turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment.  A beautiful picture to look at (despite the aforementioned problems) but lacking in substance.  I have to succumb and only lay a 6/10.  Sorry, United Artists, you're going to have to do better!


    Valkyrie (2008, Blu-Ray) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Heaven & Earth (1993)

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

    Heaven & Earth  (1994)

    Heaven & Earth (1993)

    ***oo

    Heaven & Earth is Oliver Stone's final entry in his Vietnam Trilogy, and likely the most controversial of the three.  Following the trials of a Vietnamese girl, Le Ly (Bussaro Sanruck) from a young girl at the outset of the war, all the way through to far after.

    Le grows up in a small village in rural Vietnam, far from the politics the rest of the world.  Honestly, I'm sitting here trying to think about how to summarize the first part of this film in a nice neat package, and there just isn't a good way.  It's just that complex, taking Le from the village, to fighting for the VC, to being the VC's enemy, to having a her rich boss' baby...  And much more inbetween.  This is the best part of the film, showing how she copes with life during the war, trying to make the best of a bad situation.  The relationships with all of her family members, including her mother (Joan Chen) and father (Haing Ngor) are complex, sad, and wonderful.

    And then she meets Marine Steve Butler, an American looking for some company.  She winds up falling for him, and manages to escape the fall of Saigon with him back to America.  And then film takes a turn.

    We go from her life in Vietnam, to being some sort of statement about fat, lazy, stupid Americans living life to excess with problems that she doesn't understand.  Butler is in dire straits, and has some psychological problems of his own it seems.  Things go from bad to worse, as the abuse starts, they split up, she tries to save him, but its just too late.  Throughout she remains a strong and excellent character, dealing with ignorance and prejudice, but the contrast is just too over the top.

    Life after Steve returns her to Vietnam, where she's reunited with her family along with her now grown children.  Here the film regains its sanity as they discuss the problems they faced after she left.

    If it wasn't for the "trip to Oz" that she goes through, I think this would be an absolutely stellar look at an alternate viewpoint of the war.  As it is, it just goes from dead serious and thoughtful, to a sad comic episode that doesn't belong.

    Heaven & Earth could be a top notch movie, in fact it might make you rethink your attitudes towards the war, and think about what things were like for the people on the other side.  But you'll have to endure things like the wide-eyed trip to the supermarket, and the unreal Thanksgiving dinner episode to get there.

    Heaven & Earth (1993) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Soldiers of Change, aka The Painting (2002?)

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

    The Painting  (2002)

    Soldiers of Change, aka The Painting (2002?)

    ***oo

    Alright, lets just get this out in the open right bloody now.  Soldiers of Change is not a war movie per se.  Despite the cover image, and the descriptions.  But its still a good, yet little known movie.

    What it is though, is a thoughful look at racism and overcoming it during the late 1960's.  Atlanta rich white boy Randy Barrington (Heath Freeman) falls for the niece of his father's driver (Clifton Davis), one Hallie Gilmore (Stacey Dash).  He's got to overcome prejudices on both sides before either side will accept this relationship, and ultimately he ends up going to Vietnam to escape his father's disapproval.  He's killed, and its not until his father (Charles Shaughnessy) meets his grandson does he overcome it.

    So yes, there is a brief foray into Vietnam, but its by no means the central aspect of the movie.  The war is at home here.  Since it's not really a war movie I won't even attempt to explain it in great detail.  All I can say is you really should see it, just because.  I found myself spending the first half going, "hmm, ok, so when does he get shipped off?" then I started actually liking it for what it was.  Yeah its not exactly a top notch production, and the acting, while good, is certainly not oscar material... but I found it compelling and interesting nonetheless.

    War movie? No.  Movie about struggle and the fight to overcome prejudice? Yes.  I'm only giving it a 6 because I was duped by the cover! :)  But I still recommend it.

    Soldiers of Change, aka The Painting (2002?) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Born on the Fourth of July (1989)

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

    Born on the Fourth of July (1989)

    ****o

    Born on the Fourth of July is Oliver Stone's second entry in his "Vietnam Trilogy" (Platoon, Heavan and Earth) and in my opinion, is the most powerful of the three.  In fact, I would say it's even more relevant to today than any of them, and maybe that's why.

    While Platoon seems a bit cliche for my tastes (but still good), and Heaven and Earth is just too preachy (and other reasons, but also still good), Fourth of July makes a strong statement about the sacrifice the veterans of Vietnam made, and the struggles they endured after they came home.

    Ron Kovic (Tom Cruise) is your average all-american boy from Long Island, instilled with a strong sense of patriotism and a need to do what is right.  It's this which drives him to enlist, and of course, is sent off to fight in Vietnam.  He's critically injured, and winds up confined to a wheelchair.  From there he has to come to terms with, well, everything.  Everything from reconciling his condition, the things he did and saw in Vietnam, re-examining his patriotism, and just plain getting through it.  Eventually he ends up a part of the anti-war movement, speaking at the 1976 Miami Democratic national convention.

    The first part of the film simply builds up Ron Kovic's character, and while it does run on a bit, it is necessary to contrast what he becomes later.  The "All American Family(tm)" he comes from is probably typical, and the picture that is painted is one I think most of us can relate to.

    His world changes, though, as he takes part in a raid on a village that kills civilians, and he himself kills one of his own in the heat of battle, and has to live with that guilt.  Then he's shot, paralyzing him from the chest down, and spends time in terrible conditions in a VA hospital.  From there he goes home, and has to deal with how everyone else deals with him, including his kid brother who doesn't share his patriotic views.

    He quickly spirals into depression and alcoholism, causing no end of grief for his family and others around him.  Coming to terms with the fact that he'll never walk (among other things) again, sends him off of the deep end, basically.

    Eventually Kovic winds up in Mexico, in a sort of community for other disabled vets.  Thinking he's found a home, he realizes that everyone else is just as messed up as he is.  After a humorous and sad event which leaves him stranded, he come back to the states, and finds his old girlfriend (Kyra Sedgwick) who is part of the anti-war movement.  He comes to realize that he can make a difference at last.

    OK, so maybe the film is a bit too long, but it is well worth it.  Cruise pulls off a fine performance, and really everyone else is relegated to supporting roles of various kinds.  But what's the point of it all?  Part of it is Stone asking for some respect for these guys, part of it hints at the sacrifice they and their families endured, part of it leans heavily toward the anti-war slant.

    I especially found it relevant given the events of today, where we get reports of veteran's hospitals being closed due to dreadful conditions.  I couldn't help but think of that as Kovic lies upside down in traction staring at a pile of his own puke.  Has anything really changed in the system?  At least the public view towards today's veterans has changed, but I don't think the government really has, and that's a shame.

    Some other reviews I've read blast Born on the Fourth of July for being a bit oversimplistic, just too long, or various other things.  While that might be true, I don't think it hurts it any at all.  In fact, I'd hazard to say it's because of these things that it excels.  It doesn't try to sneak its meanings under the table like Platoon, it just paints a clear understandable picture.

    The only real trouble I had with it was the ending.  I dunno, it just didn't seem to really resolve anything.  So he speaks to a large group of people making a difference like his mother dreamed about....  but at what cost?  And for what gain?

    Born on the Fourth of July (1989) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Straight Into Darkness (2004)

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

    Straight Into Darkness (2004)

    **ooo

    If you've ever wondered what would happen if you crossed a war movie with Tales From the Crypt, and added a little bit of LSD-induced weirdness... you'd probably wind up with Straight Into Darkness.

    Two Allied prisoners manage to escape the MPs escorting them, and wind up on a sick and twisted journey into hell that, while ultimately isn't that interesting, is a visual nightmare that will leave you sitting there going, "WTF was that?!"

    As Losey (Ryan Francis) and Deming (Scott MacDonald) battle each other's problems, they come across various disturbances in the balance of humanity, such as the cannibal priest and the group of bodies who have seemingly hung themselves in the forest.

    The real fun doesn't begin until they come across a seemingly abandoned building.  But it really isn't.  The inhanbitants are a band of disfigured and "special needs" children who have been turned into a capable fighting unit by their keepers, led by "Deacon" (veteran David Warner.)

    And who would show up, but an entire column of German infantry, led by a tank.  See, they're after the loot stashed in the basement of the building, and as such, are hesitant to just blow the thing up.

    Well, the "last stand" happens, and all hell breaks loose.  All I can say is WTF were they thinking?  Because there isn't much about Straight Into Darkness that makes any sense whatsoever.  I really failed to see the point.

    From the twisted kids, to Losey's constant flashbacks to his girl, to Deming's psycho personality, I just didn't get it.  It just got more laughable in its sickness as the thing went on, and ultimately the ending was such a letdown, that you just have to go, again, WTF?!

    Straight Into Darkness
    might make for a good late night B-flick, but steer clear otherwise!  I almost wish I had!

    Straight Into Darkness (2004) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Beaufort (2007)

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Beaufort  (2008)

    Beaufort (2007)

    **.oo

    Beaufort puts us in the middle of a conflict not many of us on this side of the planet really know much about, or understand for that matter.  Set in 1990 during the Israeli-Lebanon war in the border outpost of Beaufort, which the Israeli's are preparing to abandon, and thus destroy, after holding it for 18 years.

    Truthfully, I have my suspicions that if I had grown up in the midst of this conflict I might understand Beaufort a little, OK, a lot more.  This really isn't your typical war movie per se, but rather a look at the people holed up in this underground fortress, and how they deal with it, mostly our main character, the squad leader Liraz (Oshri Cohen.)

    If there was ever a film which showed the entire military concept of "hurry up and wait" this would be it.  The entire picture seems to embody this concept.  Periodically the outpost is shelled, as the guy on the loudspeaker seems bored to tears announcing "Incoming!" and "Impact!"  The game changes, though, as they start getting attacked by much more accurate rocket fire, and the men start dying because of it.

    The pointlessness of it all is quite apparent also, as Liraz starts to question his purpose as they rig the entire place for demoliton.  18 years of  holding the fortress only to destroy it.  The lives of all his men lost for apparently nothing.  It's a common war movie theme, that really hits home here.

    But good grief its incredibly dull.  I wasn't really expecting it to be so, but the 126 minute run time seems to last bloody forever, as Liraz and his men sit hunkered below discussing all manner of subjects, from their life on the outside, to what their next job is....  Like I said, maybe its a matter of perspective, I don't know.

    Nobody really stands out as putting on an excellent performance either.  Everyone seems equally dulled, jaded, and downtrodden, which they rightly should be, but by the end, well, see the last paragraph.

    Beaufort might provide a unique perspective on a war most of us only hear about briefly on the evening news, but unless you're really interested, I would just not bother.  The movie is also entirely in Hebrew with subtitles...  FYI.



    I viewed Beaufort via Netflix's Instant Watch on my new Roku Netflix player, and was fairly pleased with the presentation, but as such didn't get any extras that might have been on the disc.  It was also in 16:9 aspect ratio on the player, but the trailer looks like it may have been a full 2.35:1...  Hard to say. 

    Beaufort (2007) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

  • Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006)

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

    Black Book  (2007)

    Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006)

    ****o

    Black Book is a gritty tale of intrigue set in Holland during World War II.  Director Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Robocop) pulls no punches here, and the result is a really, really good picture.

    A young Jewish girl, Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten) finds herself without a hiding place after an Allied bomber ditches its load on her barn.  She ends up on the run with the help of an old family friend, but things take a turn for the worse as the entire group of Jews she is with gets gunned down by the Nazis.

    She joins the Dutch resistance, and infiltrates the local Nazi headquarters as a secretary to one of the chief officers, Muntze (Sebastian Koch.)  Also stationed here is the man who killed her family, Franken (Waldemar Kobus.)

    Under her new identity, Ellis de Vries, she falls for Muntze, who really isn't such a bad guy it turns out.  During a botched prisoner rescue attempt, she's framed for being a double agent, and goes on the run with Muntze.

    Well, of course she's found again, and the real conspirators are revealed and revenge enacted.  I've left a lot out of the plot, because to tell you any more would completely spoil it, and for a film this good I just can't bring myself to do it.  You'll just have to see it for yourself!

    Verhoeven doesn't hold back anything here.  There's a lot of frank nudity and sex here, along with a lot of to-the-point violence.  You'll also be spending a lot of time with subtitles, unless your German and Dutch is up to snuff, but that's beside the point.

    Black Book is the kind of movie that is at the same time attention-keeping and suspenseful, but also difficult to watch.  It's really a moving picture at times, and takes some wicked twists and turns that you really don't expect.  A few of them are quite obvious, though, and that only makes the final reveal even more of a shocker.

    van Houten puts on quite the performance, as does the resistance leader Hans (Thom Hoffman) and Koch as Muntze.  Kobus is just amazing as the slimy dirtball Franken.  Every time you see him your skin will (and should) crawl just a bit.

    Production-wise the movie is quite good as well.  Never was there a moment I wasn't buying into the entire situation, either with the sets or the characters.

    The ending also makes quite the anti-war statement, as we leave Rachel/Ellis many years later in Israel as the rockets and bombs start falling around the town/compound she is teaching in.

    I couldn't find any decent clips from Black Book, but this trailer should give you an idea.



    I watched Black Book via Netflix's Instant Watch on my new Roku Netflix player, and was quite pleased with the presentation, but as such didn't get any extras that might have been on the disc.

    Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006) on Spout.com


    Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<November 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345


Categories
 


Advertisement