“The Way Back” is a film by
Peter Weir (“Gallipoli”). It is based on
the very popular memoir by Slawomir Rawicz entitled The Long Walk. Weir and Keith Clarke wrote the
screenplay. The movie cost $30 million
and made only $20 million. It received
an Academy Award nomination for Best Makeup in what must have been a slow year
for makeup.
The film is set in WWII
Russia. Janusz Wieszczek (Jim Sturgess)
has been ratted out by his wife to the NKVD for being critical of Stalin and
for espionage. He is sent to a gulag in
Siberia. The prisoners are a mixture of
political prisoners and career criminals.
They are working in mines that are very dangerous and claustrophobic. Janusz joins a group of seven prisoners who
escape in a snow storm. The movie now
has a “who will survive?” subplot. It
does not take long for one of them to freeze to death. They have a 4,000 mile journey ahead of
themselves. Along the way, they are
joined by a teenage girl named Irena (Saoirse Ronan). In a surprise twist, even the amoral Valka
(Colin Farrell) does not mess with her.
The movie is not burdened by clichés.
Suddenly the subtitle budget ran
out and all the trekkers are speaking English.
They also look way too healthy and fit.
Their clothes are also holding out remarkably well. Good thing because they have a lot of hiking
to do. Surprisingly the journey is not
really fraught with serious problems until they reach the Gobi Desert. By that time, Valka has left the group,
taking a lot of tension and drama with him.
More walking gets the final four to their destinations.
I found this movie boring. It’s mostly a movie about people
walking. There are not enough dangers or
problems along the way. There is also
not enough dysfunctionality in the group and what little there is leaves with
Valka. Most of the characters are
undeveloped and few make an impression.
The cinematography is nothing special although the scenery is a strength
of the movie. The lack of dazzle is
perplexing considering that Weir’s cinematographer (Russell Boyd) had won the
Academy Award for “Master and Commander”.
The score is sparse. There is
little evidence that this is a Peter Weir film.
Before you call me a hypocrite for wanting
the movie to be less of a “true story”, consider the fact that the “true story”
as told by Rawicz has been refuted.
Apparently he did not escape from a gulag, but was in fact released by
the authorities. And by the way, he was
imprisoned for killing an NKVD agent, not for being an anti-communist spy. The incredibly popular book appears to be a
fraud. Even Weir was forced to admit the
film is “essentially a fictional film”.
My main problem with the movie
is that it was made. This was Weir’s big
follow up to “Master and Commander”?!
That movie was a tour de force of directing and created high
expectations for his next film. So what
happened? Not only did he not do a
sequel, he waited seven years to release a new feature length movie and it was
this dud. What was he thinking? After the disappointing box office of “Master
and Commander” I can see why he would take a break from filmmaking, but why
return with a film that was bound to land with a thud? This was a wasted opportunity.
GRADE = D
Thanks for the warning. I have little interest in this film, which seems like a waste of talent, not just Peter Weir, but Colin Farrell and Ed Harris. Especially after the original story was exposed as fake. It does seem like a strange choice of project for Weir.
ReplyDeleteIt was certainly a big disappointment.
ReplyDeleteI liked this one more than you, but it did seem to be missing something. Struck me that Weir was harkening back to his Aussie arthouse days but without conviction.
ReplyDeleteI love that arthouse reflection! I think you nailed it. I think my anger at no "Master and Commander" sequel may have colored my opinion of the movie.
Delete