The Great Escape (1963)
I almost hate to say this, but The Great Escape is actuallly a fun movie. It's loosely based on a series of real events from the Paul Brickhill book of the same name. The story follows a band of Allied POW's who have a nasty habit of escape attempts from their Nazi prison camps, and have all been sent off to a new, "escape proof" camp. Of course they have other plans.They band together in various and intricate ways to construct an elaborate tunnel out of the complex. The methods they employ in this endeavour are truly ingenious, from dirt-dumping mechanisms, to elaborate forgeries of documents and creating civilian clothing from the rags they've got at hand.
When I say "fun", I mean that it manages to keep itself light-hearted and optimistic, right up until the end. Where other films like Stalag 17 and TV such as Hogan's Heroes play up the comedy to a point where you start getting a bit uncomfortable, The Great Escape manages to maintain an air of suspense and immediacy that make it a true war movie classic. In fact the movie was nominated for an Oscar for best editing, along with several other awards. The all-star cast factors into this film's status as well, with such staples as Steve McQueen, James Garner, Richard Attenborough, Charles Bronson, Donald Pleasance, James Coburn, and David McCallum.
Of course the tunnel was only partially successful, as only a fraction of the intended escapees actually made it out, and most of them were later caught and either executed or brought back to the camp. This last bit of the film sort of brings the whole thing to a bit of an anti-climax, as we bear witness to the capture and desperation, and the execution of most of them. The few who do make it out, though, make the entire effort worthwhile.
Above all, though, the freedom-loving spirit of the film remains intact, even as Hilts (McQueen) heads off to "the cooler" with his baseball in hand yet again.
In a way, too, it illustrates a bit of the paradox that existed when it came to the Nazis and the Allied POW's, as they appear to follow a lot of western military "honor" in the way the prisoners were treated. Compare and contrast. Additionally, we get a glimpse into a bit of the German politics of the day, as the Luftwaffe officer in charge of the camp seems content to, as he puts it, "comfortably sit out the war", and attempts to convince the prisoners to do the same. Finally he's escorted off by the SS to an unpleasant fate.
But all of that is second to the aforementioned spirit of the movie, and the interludes of comedy that not only keep us entertained, but further that spirit for the prisoners. Of note in that respect is the "4th of July" celebration.
The Great Escape definitely is on the list of all-time war movie classics.
Technorati Tags: war movie review, the great escape, 1963, steve mcqueen, james garner, richard attenborough, charles bronson, donald pleasance, james coburn, david mcallum, paul brickhill, world war ii 2, pow
Midway (1976)
In June of 1942, quite possibly the most important naval encounter of WWII took place in the middle of the Pacific, at Midway Island. 1976's Midway sets out to show, in much the same manner that 1970's Tora! Tora! Tora! did about Pearl Harbor, the events and decisions that led up to and decided this landmark battle for naval dominance. Much like Pearl Harbor, it shows in detail how those events fell into place, and really couldn't have happened any other way.However, Midway departs from "Tora!" in one key aspect. Midway takes on a bit of a "docudrama" aspect, as we see in the seemingly unecessary sideline plot between Capt. Matt Garth (Charleton Heston) and his son, Ensign Tom Garth (Eddie Albert.) In this plot, Tom has fallen for a Japanese-descended civilian, and dear old dad has to try and resolve this issue. What this has to do with the battle of Midway is really a mystery to me. I can only surmise that it was thrown in there in an attempt to make it less "documentary" like, and maybe to add some sort of human dimension to the story. But if you removed it, really, you'd succeed in making the film shorter and more focused.
But enough about the griping. The remainder of Midway is pure classic war movie fare. Coupled with a stellar war-movies-whos-who, such as Henry Fonda, Cliff Robertson, Robert Mitchum, Glenn Ford, Robert Wagner, Hal Holbrook, and the inimitable Toshiro Mifune as Admiral Yamamoto.... there is no denying the greatness of this picture. Also keep a close eye out for other (at the time) upcoming stars, such as Dabney Coleman, Tom Selleck, and Erik Estrada.
The action starts off a little dull, but you'll have to chalk that up to the documentary-ish style of the first part of the picture. Here we're witness to the revelation of US intelligence of the Japanese plans for Midway, or "station AF," and the decisions on both sides of the line which bring us to the second half of the film, and the tactical goings-on which decided the victory.
Once the battle begins, we're treated to stellar dogfights and epic images of airborne squadrons, intermixed with well-chosen stock footage snippets which just blend right in. A lot of care was taken in connecting the film's footage with those stock reels. You're also reminded of the sheer scale that battles were fought on in that war, hundreds of ships of all sizes, from multiple carriers with hundreds of aircraft, to the battleships and patrol boats. All of which ultimately and unfortunately cost hundreds of lives. Such a thing will probably never happen again, and I'm glad for it.
Performance-wise, the all-star cast shines. Although I'm not sure if Mifune's voice was dubbed by someone else or not, it just doesn't seem to "match" him at all. Truthfully I've never heard him speak English in another film, so I'm going off of experience. It would have been a bit more authentic for the Japanese to have been native and subtitled, as in "Tora!", but ultimately more difficult to watch.
I have to give this one a full 9 out of 10. The only reason I'm holding back that one star is due to the misplaced "Garth family" plot. I'd heartily recommend Midway to anyone, of any age, for if nothing else a grand history lesson into the most important early battles in the Pacific, and an excellent stretch of 132 minutes.
Technorati Tags: midway, 1976, war movie review, 1942, pacific, world war ii 2, us navy, aircraft carriers, japan
The Iron Triangle (1989)
I'm really torn on this one. 1989's The Iron Triangle pits one Captain Keene (Beau Bridges) against a young VietCong fighter, Ho (Liem Whatley) in a different look at the Vietnam war.The story is based on the captured diary of a VC soldier, who took a US officer under his wing after said officer appeared to spare his life. OK, I can give you that. True stories are as true stories do, and there's not much you can do to change that.
Based on that, the story really is a good one. The moral play between Ho and his VC/NVA keepers, his VC friend, between Ho and Keene, between Keene and his ARVN compatriots, and even the short-lived French veteran of Dien Bin Phu... really are good. You'll think about the choices and the feelings every one of them have.
But (and this is a big one) my biggest problem with this film is the tremendous anti-American bias in the movie. In one sense this almost feels like it could be the work of North Vietnamese propaganda artists. The US forces are portrayed as brutal thoughtless barbarians who's sole purpose is to destroy and kill. The final battle against the village in which Ho meets his demise (well you knew his diary was captured, right?) really is executed in this fashion.
So, there's my dilemma. Torn between a good story with fair acting and lots of moral ambiguity; and the way too obvious "baby killer" slant against the US. The portrayal of the VC as somehow "in the right" and as taking the moral high ground just doesn't seem fair.
In short I know a lot of folks this movie would just plain piss off. To the point of switching it off half way through and letting slip a torrent of curses that would make your hair curl. I was nearly to that point, but I gave it a chance. Removed from the slant and bias, this story would have garnered a much higher rating. This despite subpar acting from the secondary cast, and a somewhat low-budget production. But I just can't let it slide, sorry. Five. That's it.
Technorati Tags: war movie review, the iron triangle, 1989, vietnam, vietcong, liem whatley, beau bridges
The Beast (1988)
In 1988, the Soviets began their withdrawal from Afghanistan, ending their bloody occupation, and indeed ended their own "Vietnam" if you will. The Mujahideen had won (or maybe the Soviets just lost,) and America cheered at the Red Menace's defeat.In The Beast, we get a glimpse into that conflict. The film focuses on the crew of a Soviet tank, who has just destroyed a village, and brutally (and graphically I might add) killed its citizens. The fanatical Commander Daskal (George Dzundza) then heads off to rendezvous with the rest of his division, but gets lost along the way, trapped in a desolate desert valley.
The remaining men from the village (who were away during the attack) join forces with a rival "warlord" and hunt the tank with a found RPG launcher. Meanwhile, one of the tank crew, Constantine Koverchenko (Jason Patric) takes issue with Daskal, and finds himself on the side of the Afghans.
In a way this film reminds me a lot of Blackhawk Down, in that the plot lines are somewhat similar, with the stranded superpower in a strange land behind enemy lines hunted by the native forces. Although the audience's sympathies are designed to lie with the locals this time.
And really, this is a damn good movie. The first sequence of events left me wondering what I was in for, with the vicious attack on the village and the graphic death of its leader. But all that is meant to cement the Soviets as the villians. There are other instances of their abominable actions, such as poisoning the water supplies.
Unfortunately, while this really is a good movie (really!) events of recent years leave a bias in your head that is difficult to overcome. Knowing what the Afghan Mujahideen eventually evolved into, and what (and who) their ranks spawned is always in the back of your mind, and quite frankly you find yourself, despite the opening sequence, not sure who's side you should be on. This feeling is furthered by the excellent work of Patric and the rest of his tank crew (Stephen Baldwin and Don Harvey) as they morally clash with the borderline-crazy Daskal, on numerous occasions, and you find yourself sympathizing with them as well.
The roles of the Afghans, in particular Taj (Steven Bauer), the new "Khan", are equally well played, even in the face of their lines being all in Arabic (Farsi? Hell, I'm no linguistic expert) and subtitled.
I won't spoil the ending for you, but suffice it to say that closure is brought on all sides. Well, the ones that matter anyway. You never get to see what happens to the remaining two "tankers." (whoops! I did spoil it a little!)
This little-known treasure surprised me. The tension between the tank crew gets really thick at times, and the tug on your emotions back and forth between the crew and the fighters will keep you on your toes. The action is really not bad either, although there are a few graphic moments which, while they may be "accurate", can seem a bit gratuitous. Great acting and direction, along with a decent soundtrack make get The Beast an eight on my scale.
Technorati Tags: war movie review, the beast, 1988, afghanistan, soviet union, tanks, mujahideen, george dzundza, jason patric, steven bauer, stephen baldwin, don harvey
The Company (2007) Parts 5 & 6
All I have to say is, what a let down. After last week I thought things were really going to pick up with The Company, and I was sorely disappointed.Somehow we jumped straight from Cuba in the early 60's to post-Vietnam '75 and '76. Yeah lets just ignore that entire 10-15 year period. Because we know the CIA didn't have anything to do with or in Vietnam. cough Laos cough Air America *coughcough*
Anyway....
So they're still trying to figure out who the "new" mole is. And of course they find out, and of course its someone you least expect. But to get there really didn't go anywhere. If that makes any kind of sense at all.
Not until the very end did we come back to the Yevgeny (Rory Cochrane) /McCaullife connection. And even that was just hit on and then seemingly brushed aside.
In the end the Berlin wall comes down, the Soviet Union falls, and somehow we're led to believe that the CIA might've had some involvement with securing Yeltsin's position in the new Russia. Er, ok.
There were a couple of jabs at America which may have been valid put in context, but screamed more about making a statement on the current state of affairs. The whole "arrogant imperialist" bit.... and then there's the "tobacco is bad m'kay" thing going on with Angleton (Michael Keaton) that just screamed of being preachy.
The final scene gave a little bit of closure and meaning to the whole experience, though. With McCauliffe (Chris O'Donnell) and Harvey (Alfred Molina) talking about whether or not they made any difference. That at least made you think a little. Just a little.
In the end I can't say I was all that impressed with the entire thing. The last hour left you feeling somewhat like that last 45 minutes of "The Return of the King," where Sauron was defeated and we had to spend the time watching all the reunions and tearful farewells. While it might make for good reading it makes for tedious film.
As for the performances, I really can't fault anybody there. O'Donnell was his usually adequate self, Molina's character really just had bit parts here and there. Keaton was great as usual but his character suffered more from writing I think than anything. Must've been difficult to play a dull, boring, bureaucrat....
With any luck The Company will fade off into oblivion and TNT won't shove it down our throats anymore.
Technorati Tags: the company, 2007, tnt, mini series, cia, cold war, chris o'donnell, michael keaton, alfred moilna, spy game
