The Tiger (2025)

            “Der Tiger” is a new WWII tank movie streaming on Amazon Prime. It was co-written and directed by Dennis Gansel. He directed eleven episodes of the “Das Boot” tv series. A Soviet T-55 chassis was mocked up to resemble a Tiger. It does look like a Tiger and effort was put into the interior to make it look authentic. I checked some diagrams of the interior of a Tiger and the film got it right. The movie begins with a title card reminding us that “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” Not very original and after you see the movie you will wonder if that quote was meant as a deception.

The movie takes place o the Dnieper Front in the fall of 1943. The German army is on the retreat everywhere in Russia. The titular tank is protecting the retreat of one of those retreating units. It is stationed at the Soviet end of a bridge and is literally the last German vehicle that has yet to cross the bridge. In a well-done action scene, the tank holds off Soviet infantry and tanks. The Tiger is a beast that is capable of holding its own against great odds. And it can take a licking. It is apparent why it was the most feared tank in the war. This will be emphasized throughout the movie. 

The crew is led by Lt. Gurkens (David Schutter) who is a typical gritty commander, but he is not a martinet. The crew calls him by his first name. There are four other crewmen. Some are stock tank characters. The radio operator wears glasses, which is mandatory in war movies. The gunner is the commander’s best friend and is wiling to disagree with him. (He reminds of the chief engineer in ‘Das Boot” the movie.  The driver is a veteran who is good at his job. There is a loader and a co-driver. Needless to say, they won’t all survive.

            Gurkens is given a secret mission which is to go behind enemy lines to rescue an officer who has plans that cannot fall into enemy hands. If they fail, the war is lost, of course. The officer happens to be the godfather of Gurkens’ son. A series of flashbacks teases out their relationship. The movie has a mystery to solve. The road trip is a series of vignettes which is normal for these kinds of movies. They encounter a minefield where they are able to treat us to the cliché of one of the crew having to be saved from blowing up. They run into Soviet tanks and one persistent SU-100. This monster of a self-propelled gun is actually a year away from combat in reality, but it had a scarier 100 mm. gun than the SU-85s 85. At one point, the Tiger has to submerge to avoid impossible odds. They encounter a German unit burning a village and killing civilians. The commander is a stereotypical evil Nazi, but he is the only Nazi in the movie. The crew is apolitical. They eventually reach the bunker where their target is located.

            “The Tiger” is an intriguing movie. It has some of the cliches you see in tank movies, like the behind the lines mission and some stereotypical characters. But it avoids others. There is little dysfunction in the crew. All of them are appealing characters and they have the kind of camaraderie you would expect in a seasoned crew. Their banter is unforced. The death of one of the crew is heart-tugging and way above average for a low budget war movie. (I am a critic of the laughable depictions of death in most war movies.) Durkens is well-respected and is a good leader. But we do reach the point in the movie where his crew asks the inevitable question: “Is this mission worth what we are going through?” Durkens’ answer is “duty is duty.”

            I was not expecting much from this movie. The tank subgenre is not noted for its quality. There is no “Das Boot” equivalent and most of the films are below average for war movies. “The Tiger” stands out because although it has some cliches (ex. the mission behind the lines) and stereotyped characters (ex. the evil Nazi), it manages to avoid being predictable and unoriginal. It has a scene that I have never seen in a war movie (the submergence scene) and the tank does things I have never seen from any tank (ex. it launches smoke grenades). It is a well-made film with good acting and outstanding sound effects. But the main thing that sets it apart from other tank movies is a twist that I won’t give away. It’s worth the watch to see what I am talking about. Let me know if you figure it out and if you think it is better than “Fury” or “The Beast”.

GRADE  =  B+

PINOCCHIO (2022)

 

                 “Pinocchio” (also known as “Guillermo del Toro’s Pinocchio”) was a passion project for the director. He had wanted to make the film for decades as he was a huge fan of the novel The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi. The novel was published in 1883 and set in 1880s Italy. Del Toro decided to move his story to WWII Italy. He wanted his version to be darker than Disney’s. He was influenced by “Frankenstein”. He wanted one theme to be generational differences between a father and his son. He also wanted the film to be about compassion. Pinocchio is not only a liar, but he is meant to be a typical boy lacking self-control. He contrasts with the puppet-like behavior of the children in fascist Italy. The twin journeys of the father and son find Pinocchio becoming more human and Geppetto becoming more loving. He based his character designs on artist Gris Grimly’s illustrations for the 2002 edition of the novel. He changed many of the characters. Spazzatura the monkey replaces the Cat. Count Volpe (Christopher Waltz) is a composite of the Fox, Mangiafuoco, and the Ringmaster. The Coachman becomes the Podesta (Ron Perlman). And del Toro adds Mussolini (Tom Kenny) as the figurehead of fascism. 

Del Toro decided to go with stop motion animation. It became the longest stop motion film ever made. The film was announced in 2008 and later Del Toro predicted a release in 2013, Unfortunately, he had trouble finding a studio that would finance a big budget adaptation of a classic animated film. Finally, Netflix decided to bankroll the film. It was a good decision because although the production cost $35 million, it made $110 million. Del Toro assembled an all-star line-up of vocal actors including Ewan McGregor, Ron Perlman, Christopher Waltz, and Tilda Swinson. Cate Blanchett begged to be on the project, but the only role left was the monkey Spazzatura. She jumped at it. For Pinocchio, del Toro chose Gregory Mann because he had a normal child’s voice, not an animated character voice. The film was critically acclaimed and won best animated movie awards from the Academy Awards, BAFTA, Golden Globes, and Screen Actor’s Guild.

Twenty years after the end of WWI, Geppetto (David Bradley) lives in an idyllic village in Italy. He lost his son in the war and a treacly song over a montage of their lives together makes it clear his best days are over. One night while drunk, he carves a boy out of a tree that grew on his sons grave. A wood sprite brings the puppet to life and assigns a cricket (Ewan McGregor) to guide Pinocchio. He narrates the film. It won’t be easy as Pinocchio has the self-control of a toddler. Geppetto can’t handle him so like parents over the centuries, he sends him to school to have the teachers parent him. In a movie full of villains, the town has an evil priest, the local fascist leader, and his bully son. Before he can attend school, he is connived into joining the circus by Count Volpe (Christophe Waltz) and his nefarious monkey (Blanchett). When Geppetto comes to recover his lying son, an altercation results in the death of the puppet. This is when he finds out he cannot die for good. He is revived after a certain amount of time, each time. In one of those lives, he is a propaganda tool for the government until an ill-fated run-in with Il Duce himself. He then ends up in boot camp because what could be better than a soldier who can’t be killed. But everyone else in this movie can be and most are. This movie has a stunningly high death count among its main characters. But don’t worry, Del Toro made a gritty, harsh Pinocchio, but he did not have the guts to forego a happy ending.

“Pinocchio” is barely a war movie. It is set in WWI and the war comes to the town by way of the air, but Pinocchio does not get into combat. Oddly, it is not hard on fascism and Mussolini is only lightly lampooned. You may want to explain to your children who that war criminal is. And why he is the least villainous of the villains. The number of villains stands out, but they are mostly stereotypes. The movie also has several cliches, including redemption arcs for two main characters. And there is the “you’re a burden” scene that you see in dysfunctional father-son movies. The animation is awesome. However, the songs are underwhelming. The movie is a feast for the eyes, but not for the ears.

In conclusion, “Pinocchio” is overrated, especially as a war movie. It certainly is a different take on the classic and for that reason it is worth the watch. And the talent that went into it is very apparent. I feel it is a bit harsh for younger children, so you may want to wait a few years before letting them watch it. And make sure you are viewing it with them.

GRADE =  B

JOHN CARTER (2012)

                   This is the latest in my series of reviews of movies based on books by Edgar Rice Burroughs and their comparison to the book.  “John Carter” (originally intended to be entitled “John Carter on Mars” until Disney ludicrously decided Mars in the title would turn off females) was the culmination of decades of interest in filming “A Princess of Mars” which was published in 1917.  The novel was the compilation of a series that ran in a pulp magazine named The All-Story in 1912 under the title “Under the Moons of Mars”.  Burroughs wrote the series under the pseudonym  Normal (accidentally changed to Norman) Bean (“normal human being”) because he was worried readers would find it silly.  In the 1930’s, Disney took a run at an animated version, but early samples were greeted with less than enthusiasm by theater owners.  Other attempts also fell through until Andrew Stanton took an interest in the project.  He had the cachet from having directed “Wall-E” and “Finding Nemo”, but had never directed a live-action film.  He was given a huge budget that reached $263 million, although Disney was skeptical from the start.  It had good reason to be.  The.movie was a huge bomb (although it did well in Russia). 

               The movie begins with a narrator giving background about conditions on Mars (Barsoom).  The planet is dying.  There are two rival cities.  Helium is the center of science and civilization.  Zodanga is intent on planetary dominance.  The uneasy balance is about to be broken because the leader of Zodanga, Sab Than (Dominic West), has been given a super weapon by a mysterious group of godlike men called Therns led by Matai Shang (Mark Strong).  Mars is going to need a savior.  Cut to New York City in 1881.  John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) has recently died and has left his journal to his nephew, Edgar Rice Burroughs.  The journal launches the flashback to how Carter ended up on Mars.

               Carter is a Civil War veteran in the West.  He is obsessed with finding gold.  When he escapes from being conscripted into the cavalry, he takes refuge in a cave and is attacked by a Thern.  Suddenly, he finds himself on Mars where the low gravity and his denser bones gives him great strength and the ability to leap far distances.  He is captured by green Martians called Tharks.  However, his special powers allow him to escape and he gains the respect of the Tharks.  He befriends the chief’s daughter Sola and acquires a “dog” because this is a Disney movie.  He manages to rescue the Princess Dejah of Helium (Lynn Collins).  They undertake a journey down a river to try to get him back to Earth.  Carter and Dejah don’t get along at first, so you can guess where their relationship is heading.  This will become awkward because Dejah is supposed to marry Sab to bring peace to the cities.  (Think “Princess Bride”.)     The movie is careening to a big set piece battle between Zadonga and Helium, with the Tharks siding with Helium.  Supervillain Shang is around to cause trouble.

               “John Carter” did not deserve the ridicule it got from the critics.  It is not a great movie, but it is also not a disaster.  If you did not have money invested in Disney, you might marvel at the special effects.  The huge budget shows.  The film is gorgeous.  The CGI is amazing and even the multi-limbed Tharks look real.  Unfortunately, the technology allows for the hordeish melees typical of modern battle scenes.  For instance, at one point, John Carter defeats an entire army of Green Martians, by himself.  The hyperbole of Carter’s prowess can be blamed both on Burrough’s imagination and modern cinemas penchant for overdoing every action scene.  While the land battles tend to be messy, the air battles are cool.  The airships are similar to Roman galleys and tactics include boarding.  They look like what a fantasy writer might have envisioned was the future of warfare. 

               Part of the reason for the failure of the movie at the box office must have been the lack of living Burroughs fans who would have flocked to see their muse’s imagination brought to the screen.  To everyone else, the pulpy nature of the story might seem quaint.  The story requires a love for the fantastic as opposed to the logical.  There are plenty of threads to be pulled at if you are of a mind.  For example, the objective of the Therns makes little sense.  More specifically, the super weapon should have made all challenges to Zadonga moot.  Setting the movie on Mars did not cut it off from Earthly clichés.  For a fantasy, it is pretty predictable.  Stranger rescues Princess, they fall in love, he wins battles for her.

               Disney assembled a worthy cast to the point where the supporting actors (Mark Strong, Bryan Cranston, Claran Hinds, James Purefoy) could give acting lessons to Kitsch and Collins.  (In my opinion, the movie would have been better if Purefoy had played Carter.)  Whether you are a child or not, Woola steals the show.  The soundtrack by Michael Giacchino lends some class.

               I am going to assume most readers of this are familiar with Burroughs’ novel and prefer it to the movie.  I have a theory that a movie should be able to exceed the source novel for entertainment value.  The screenwriters (Stanton, Mark Andrews, and Michael Chabon) did what they thought was right to update the story for a modern audience.  It is clear, they did not use Burroughs fans as a test audience.  Substantial changes were made to the narrative and to the characters.  They decided to make Carter a typical modern anti-hero.  He is not the knight of the book.  He is reluctant to get involved and is focused on getting home until he falls in love with Dejah.  He fights for no one until he fights for someone.  And he’s a dick, until his innate humanity comes out.  He is damaged goods as the movie gives him a back-story involving his family.  As far as Dejah, clearly you don’t attract females with a heroine who is a damsel in need of rescuing.  Watch any recent Disney animated movie.  Dejah is both a scientist and a kick-ass warrior.  In the book, she agrees to the marriage for the good of her city. In the movie, she selfishly refuses to get married.  The rest of the characters are essentially the same, with the exception of Shang, who does not appear in the first book.  The movie loses Tars Tarka’s back-story and omits most of his heroism.  Carter sucks up most of this.  On the other hand, Sab is bumped up to Lex Luther status.             

               The screenwriters decided that Carter would logically be focused on returning to Earth because so would the audience.  In the book, he assimilates enthusiastically into Martian culture.  He learns the language, but not via a ludicrous potion device. The book reads like a travelogue and tourist guide in parts.  Hell, there is a chapter on Martian sex!  The movie Carter is your standard fish out of water.

               The writers added elements so the movie could join the action/adventure club.  The movie adds the medallion as a McGuffin because Carter must have a way to get back to Earth.  (The book Carter is content with life on Mars because he has been reborn there.)  The villain is given tattoos and a super weapon.  Carter is not the virtuous knight of the book, but this makes him more interesting, if stereotypical.  He does not win all his fights easily, like in the book.  His arc with Dejah is also tropeish, but an improvement over the roller-coaster ride of the book.  But the biggest improvement is the movie ditches the racism and sexism of the book.  ERB could be excused for making the Tharks savages in the book because it was the early 20^th Century, but this would not have flown in the 21^st Century.  Finally, excuse the pun, the movie replaces the ridiculous ending of the book with a much better conclusion.

               ERB was wrong about the public finding the serial to be too outlandish when it was published in 1912.  It turned out to be very popular and launched the series of novels.  However, the movie was made one hundred years later and times have changed.  The “improvements” made by the screenwriters were considered necessary to attract a modern audience that grew up with “Star Wars”.  This resulted in a generic action film, but a competently made one that is entertaining.  If you are an ERB purist (which I am not), the changes made dumbed down the movie.  If you are not, the movie improves on some of the novel’s weaknesses.

GRADE  =  C 

DUELING CHRISTMAS WAR MOVIES

 

Christmas Homecoming (2017)

               I have an expansive definition for war movies, so I include military movies in the genre. As you can tell from the title, there is no combat in this movie. And you might guess that it is a Hallmark movie. If you have seen even a few Hallmark Christmas movies, you know the formula that is used. Hallmark does not believe in revisionism. Its huge catalogue of Christmas movies includes few that would be considered very good. They are all comforting and mildly entertaining. And very family friendly. There are over 450 Hallmark Christmas movies so there has to be a few war movies in there.

               Amanda (Julie Benz) is a war widow who is the curator for the town’s war museum. Her husband was killed two years ago, but she still has not recovered completely. She is sour on Christmas and can’t get into the spirit. A wounded Master Sergeant Jim Mullins rents a room from her. Jim is fully into Christmas. Will he melt Amanda’s heart and restore her love of the season? If you don’t know the answer to that question, you have never seen a Hallmark movie or a Hallmark card. By the way, Amanda and Jim send out Hallmark cards in one scene. I would say that is acceptable product placement.

               Would you believe Amanda has a boyfriend? Craig (Toby Levins) has never seen a Hallmark movie so he has no idea that he is heartbreak bait. Because he is your usual clueless beau who is the last person in the cast and all the viewers to know he’s a sap. However, he is Type A of Hallmark jilted third legs which means he takes it well. He is not Type B which is the villainous boyfriend who deserves to be crushed.

               Jim warms up Amanda by being relentlessly giddy about Christmas. He is like a big teddy bear of a kid. “This is going to sound corny, but I believe in the Christmas spirit.” Is this the first time “corny” has been mentioned in a Hallmark Christmas movie? The word would fit every one of them. The one fairly novel element of the plot (but the opposite of novel for a war movie) is that Jim is being torn by his growing affection for Amanda and his affection for his mates. It’s coin toss in war movies whether the character will choose bros over hos. Guess what wins out in this movie. Jim seals the deal and completes his spiritifiction of Amanda by  helping her with a fundraiser to save the museum. He literally outbids Craig for her hand.

               I have seen a few Hallmark Christmas movies (and zero other Hallmark movies) and “Christmas Homecoming” is better than average. The leads are appealing, of course. There is some chemistry. The evolution of their relationship makes sense. You do feel sorry for Craig. He doesn’t deserve the jilting, but he takes it like a man. Plus, Amanda had not committed to him so it’s not like she left him at the altar. The movie is not smarmy. Before you say that it can’t be a war movie just because one of the cast is a veteran, the inclusion of the museum subplot puts it more comfortably in the genre. But feel free to say “bah, humbug” to that.

GRADE  =  C

Operation Christmas (2016)

               “Operation Christmas” is one of the over 450 Hallmark Christmas movies. It is one of a few Hallmark War Christmas movies along with “Operation Christmas Drop” and “Christmas Homecoming”. It should not be confused with the Colombian army’s operation against guerrillas. This is a fictional story of love set in the Christmas season in America.

               Olivia (Tricia Helfer – Cyborg “Number 6” in “Battlestar Galactica”) meets Scott (Marc Blucas – Riley in “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”) on a ski slope. Scott is an Army sergeant. They are both single. She’s divorced and he’s a widow. But any possibility for romance is ruined by the fact that she is Kings fan and he’s an Islanders fan. (Why didn’t the screenwriters choose a real rivalry like Rangers and Islanders?)  He’s an optimist and she’s a cynic. But wait, this is a Hallmark movie, so there is still hope. And when you factor in their adorable kids becoming friends any doubt is removed.

               Just when things are warming up, prodded by the kids, he is called back to duty right before Christmas and can’t make a date. Naturally, his message does not get to her. She knew Christmas sucks! BUMP #1  Eleven months later, Scott shows up as her liaison for her Toys for Tots drive. This is his first opportunity to explain what happened, charmingly. Apparently, he was so busy killing terrorists that he could not correspond with her to offer numerous apologies. She’s not buying his very late explanation, but she has to work with him. Awkward!  He takes her to church and they have their first kiss. Relationship sailing smoothly, right? BUMP #2 Army life doesn’t fit civilian life very well. There are more bumps to come, but love will conquer. Duh!

               “Operation Christmas” is a typical Hallmark Christmas movie. Or a typical rom-com without the com. It does differ from most Hallmark movies because there is no love triangle. There is no villain. As usual, we have a cynical woman who needs melting. And since this woman is played by Tricia Helfer, there’s your lure, guys. Tell your wife or girlfriend (or both) that you will watch a Hallmark Christmas movie because you love her so  much. And for the females in the audience, you have Marc Blucas. (He also starred in “Holiday for Heroes”.) Call it a tie. And thrown in some cute kids with acting chops who do the matchmaking scheming. Throw in beautiful, very white scenery provided by British Columbia. And add TEN songs. You end up with a nice, comforting Christmas flick.  

GRADE  =  C