“Joe
Maddison’s War” is a BBC movie that is about an average Joe on the home front
in WWII Britain.It starts during the
Battle of Britain and tracks Maddison’s (Kevin Whately) through his soap opera
life impacted a little by the war.
Maddison
is a veteran of WWI, but as his son tells him:“This is my generation’s war.”He
works in a shipyard and brings his lunch in a paper box on a string.He’s a sad sack.His is wife leaves him.Who wouldn’t?After the first bombing raid, he and his friend Harry (Robson Green)
join the Home Guard.Harry is a cynical
wisecracker.When Joe meets a comely
lass named Selina, he will eventually have to make a choice between her and his
wife who returns with a daughter.This
decision will take a few years as the movie draws it out for no particular
reason.Meanwhile, Joe and Harry become
anti-aircraft gunners with no training.They don’t need it as they shoot down the first bomber they aim at!Harry gets in some trouble with a snooty
officer, but at least something finally happens.Unfortunately, there isn’t a whole lot else
that happens in this languid movie.
I
would best describe this movie as inconsequential.It has a good cast and they do their best,
but there is only a bone to gnaw on.There is no meat to the story.It
is a series of boring vignettes.I will
give it credit for being unpredictable, but that’s because I would not have
predicted that over a four year period in the war, basically nothing of
cinematic interest would happen. By the
way, don’t watch it if you are a Catholic.Maddison lost his religion in WWI.He goes against his local priest’s admonition to save his marriage.When his wife leaves, he takes down her
crucifix.
Ernest Hemingway’s novel came out in
1940 and it was movie-bound from the moment it became a bestseller. It was the story of an American who joined
the anti-fascists in the Spanish Civil War.
Paramount bought the rights and Dudley Nichols wrote the
screenplay. He took out any references
to Francisco Franco and the Falangists. I
guess he didn’t want to offend fascists. Sam Wood (“Command Decision”) directed. Hemingway wanted Gary Cooper and Ingrid
Bergman to play his two main characters.
The studio agreed to Cooper, but chose Vera Zorina for the role of
Maria. She had her hair cut short and
she was dressed in drab clothing. Like
the character in the book. When the
executives saw some footage of her, they were appalled that her guerrilla
warrior was not glamorous! They brought
in Bergman and beautified the character.
Bergman’s participation in the picture had a significant unintended
consequence. She had just made
“Casablanca”. Warner Brothers wanted to
reshoot some scenes. One of them
involved replacing “As Time Goes By” with a different song. She was not available, so the film stayed the
way it was. “For Whom the Bell Tolls”
was the second highest grossing film in 1943.
It was critically acclaimed and was nominated for nine Academy
Awards. Katina Paxinou won for Best
Supporting Actress. The other
nominations were for Best Picture (losing to “Casablanca”), Best Actor (Cooper
lost to Paul Lukas for “Watch on the Rhine”), Best Actress (Bergman lost to
Jennifer Jones for “The Song of Bernadette”), Best Supporting Actor (Akim
Tamiroff), Cinematography (Color), Art Direction (Color), Editing, and
Score.
The movie opens with a title card:
“Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind and therefore send
not to know ‘For whom the bell tolls, the bell tolls for thee.’” (The quote actually comes from a book by John
Donne.) We are in Spain in 1937. Robert Jordan (Cooper) is an American
language teacher who has joined the Republicans fighting against Franco’s
fascists. He is an explosives expert and
we see him sabotaging a train. He gets
away, but he has to shoot his wounded partner.
His next mission is to blow up a bridge.
He hooks up with a band of rebels led by Pablo. Their lair is a cave in the mountains. Pablo is against blowing up the bridge
because he fears reprisals and the heat that his band will receive. His wife Pilar (Paxinou) is one tough
broad. She overrules Pablo, calls him a
coward and drunkard, and green lights the mission. On the other end of the female spectrum is
the lovely Maria. She was rescued from
the fascists. She and Jordan fall in
love. There are going to be a lot of
bumps in the road, but I don’t have to spoiler alert that there is going to be
a blown up bridge.
“For Whom the Bell Tolls” is a
decent rendering of the famous novel. It
is faithful to the book, so students can write their book report from it
instead of reading the book. Or use AI. And
it is in Technicolor, not black and white!
And did I mention it has explosions?
The movie hooks you early with the blowing up of a train and this is
bookended by the railroad bridge demolition.
There’s also a bullet-expending ambush and a chase scene at the
end. For guys, these will balance the
schmaltzy romance that is intertwined with the action scenes.
The movie has a fine ensemble cast
and the acting is stellar, with the surprising exception of Ingrid
Bergman. She is not believable as
Maria. Maria has seen her parents killed
and has been raped by the fascists. And
yet, she is a cheerful person. She’s
just not believable. Plus, she is much
too beautiful to play a guerrilla gal.
Her love scenes with Cooper are rife with smarmy dialogue. In one scene,
Jordan and Maria go to sleep after talking in gag-inducing frippery and when
they wake up we have to sit through more of it.
Other than the smoochy stuff, the dialogue is fine. The characters are
interesting. Pablo is a spineless jerk,
but he gets the films redemption arc.
Jordan is Gary Cooper playing himself.
He did not have to stretch much, but he is perfect in the role, as
Hemingway foresaw. Acting honors go to
Oscar-deserving Paxinou. Her Pilar is a
blast (excuse the pun). She not only
should be running the band, she does run the band. She gets a monologue on being ugly. And she gets to pull a grenade with her
teeth. She is the first woman I have
seen in a war movie who could have actually done that.
The movie is technically sound. The lighting for the nighttime scenes is
excellent. Something modern movies have
a hard time pulling off. The score is
traditional drama music and the movie seldom does not have music, but it’s a
good soundtrack and became the first movie soundtrack to be released as a
record.
The film is a bit predictable,
especially if you are familiar with Hemingway’s style. For instance, Jordan decides to blow up the
bridge even though they find out that the purpose for the demolition is no
longer in play. The film eschews a happy ending in favor of an appropriate
finale for the Hemingway hero Jordan.
Maybe that is why it lost to “Casablanca”. Jordan does not walk into the misty night
with Pilar.
If you don’t like classic movies directed by William Wellman
and starring Gary Cooper, Ray Milland, and Robert Preston, you might want to
check out a remake from 1966.That was
the year some brainiac decided that the Beau Geste (1939) version could be
improved upon with a second rate cast, a one-time movie director, and less from
the famous novel.Before you say “at
least it’s in color”, the 1939 was in color, too.So, if there wasn’t a change in color, what
was “improved”?The brothers Geste are
Americans.There are no scenes from when
they were children.There are no pesky
female characters yammering away.(No
female speaks in this movie.)And the
villain’s name was changed just to confuse people.And one brother was deleted because who needs
a guy named Digby?
The
movie opens in 1906 in the Sahara desert.A unit of French Legionnaires arrives at a fort that is on fire.Beau Geste (Guy Stockwell) is the only
survivor.Flashback to Beau and John
(Doug McClure) enlisting in the French Foreign Legion after Beau fled from
home, taking the blame for an act of embezzlement.They are put under the charge of the
dastardly Sgt. Dagineau (Telly Savalas).He oversees the requisite training montage that includes marching
blind-folded toward a cliff to instill blind obedience.As if he were not a martinet already,
Dagineau receives an anonymous letter threatening him with death.He focuses his suspicions on Beau.With the help of a toady named Boldini (David
Mauro), he makes life rough for Beau and the rest of the unit.Things get worse when they are sent to
relieve the garrison at the isolated Fort Zinderneuf.On the way, they are ambushed by the native
Tauregs and Dagineau takes command when they reach the fort.A mutiny against his tyrannic rule is
interrupted by a besieging Taureg army.
My
advice would be to only watch this movie if you have not read the novel and
seen the 1939 movie.If you have seen
the movie, you will spend the whole time wondering why the Hell the
screenwriter made such ridiculous changes in the plot.None of the changes are for the better.And none of them make sense for box office
reasons. Other than the nationalistic changing of Beau and John to Americans.I’m sure that brought in thousands of
Americans who refused to see the original because it was too British.Unfortunately, this was probably balanced by
all the female moviegoers lost by the elimination of women from the film.Producer Walter Seltzer was attracted to the
escapism, adventure, and romance of the earlier version and then he allowed his
movie to dilute all those elements.Another element that made the 1939 version wonderful was the
incorporation of a mystery involving the stolen gem.To drop that element was a very questionable
decision for a low budget movie lacking star power.Speaking of star power, the only reason for
doing a remake would have been to see the modern equivalents of Cooper,
MIlland, and Preston reenacting the plot.
The
best word for the movie is mediocre.The
cast is that of a made-for-TV movie.Stockwell is bland as the supposed to be dashing Beau and McClure is too
sincere as John.The casting of Savalas
for the Brian Donlevy role was a good one.He is effective as the villain and is the only actor who comes out of
this with his head held high.The action
scenes were meant to be the showstoppers, but they are those of a B
western.The Tauregs had just as soon
have been Indians attacking a fort.As
usual in a movie of this type (and most B war movies), no enemy is ever
wounded.If shot, they are dead. Until
one is just wounded at the end for plot purposes.
Just
watch the earlier one again.
GRADE=C-
Beau Geste TV series (1982)
In
1982, another stab at the P.C. Wren novel was made.This time by the BBC.It was divided into eight 30-minute
episodes.It was directed by Douglas
Camfield, who did a lot of the “Doctor Who” episodes.It was filmed in England, including the
desert scenes.As is usual for BBC
productions, it follows the source material closely.Much more closely than any other version.It is the best option if you do not want to
read the novel.That does not mean it is
the best option for entertainment.Fidelity is not always the best approach for screenwriters.The novel is a classic, but the 1939 movie
made changes for the better.In this
case, it was wisely decided to not try to replicate that movie.This was wise given the cast available.Think opposite of Gary Cooper, Ray Milland,
Robert Preston, and Brian Donlevy.Add a
low budget.
“The
Last Legion” is a Dino De Laurentis production. For those of my generation,
that used to mean the film was likely a bloated all-star epic, like “Battle of
the Bulge” and “Anzio”.It was one of
the last movies that he produced. The film was directed by Doug Lefler, who
only had a few television episodes to his credit. It was based on the novel by
Valerio Manfredi who helped co-write the screenplay. The story combines two
legends because two is better than one, right?Those legends are the legend of King Arthur, specifically the sword in
the stone, and Rome’s Lost Legion.
A narrator tells us the movie is set
in the waning days of the Roman Empire. A sword made for Julius Caesar had been
passed down from emperor to emperor until Tiberius had it hidden upon his
death. The sword has magical powers and Rome could sure use them as it is being
threatened by barbarians led by Odoacer (Peter Mullan). Rome is pulling back
its legions, including the ones in Britain. A Roman general named Aurelius
(Colin Firth) has returned to guard the emperor, a boy named Romulus Augustulus
(Thomas Brodie-Sangster). When the Goths capture Rome, Romulus is taken
captive, but Aurelius escapes. Ambrosinus (Ben Kingsley) is a Merlin-like
(actually closer to Obi Wan) advisor who convinces Odoacer to exile Romulus
rather than kill him. The suddenly sympathetic barbarian agrees. Aurelius and
Mira (Aishwarya Rai) rescue Romulus, who has discovered the sword hidden in
Tiberius’ villa. He who finds it is destined to rule (or in this case rerule).
The motley crew go on an odyssey that leads to Britain where they hook up with
the Lost Legion. The legionaries had stayed in Britain and are now farmers.
They will come out of retirement as Romulus is being chased by Goths and they
hook up with an evil Britannic chieftain. Let the clanging continue!
How could such a good cast make such
a bad movie? Clearly, the problem was in the script. By trying to combine two
totally unrelated legends, we get a mish-mash that is mostly mush. Trying to
jam the Arthur legend into the fall of the Roman Empire requires too much
reality suspension. And, in spite of the unique attempt to combine the legends,
the movie still ends up predictable. Everything that happens has been done in
other medieval movies. The villains are mustache-twirlers. The heroes are
saintly. Their dialogue is trite and embarrassing for thespians like Firth and
Kingsley. I wonder if they were told beforehand that the movie was going to
premiere in Abu Dhabi. That should have caused some second-thoughts about
signing on, but then again, they have nobody to blame but themselves since they
had access to the script. Maybe they were in it for the free trip to Abu Dhabi.
Typical of a De Laurentis
production, the action scenes are second-rate. The CGI is terrible. The
soundtrack is Disneyesque. The action scenes look like they are copying a Bruce
Lee movie. The combat keeps trying to top itself with more and more ahistorical
weapons. For example, we are treated to a multi-arrow launcher. The
choreography is brainless and derivative. On the plus side, the 9th
Legion “rides to the rescue” in a testudo.
“The Last Legion” was the first of
three movies that featured Roman legionaries in Britain. The others were
“Centurion” in 2010 and “The Eagle” in 2011. I am a big fan of Roman history,
in particular the Roman army. It is always nice to see movies on that subject,
but we have not been too blessed with these movies. “Centurion” is a B movie
and “The Eagle” is a C. Both are entertaining, if disappointing. “The Last
Legion” is just an embarrassment.
Today is the 16th anniversary of the first post on this blog. I am proud that I have continued for this long and have no plans to end any time soon. At the time I started, it was a project to watch all of Military History magazine's 100 Greatest War Movies. One per week. That turned out to be wildly optimistic, especially since I soon decided to review other war movies. And then when I completed all 100 of the supposed greatest war movies, I moved on to my own 100 Best War Movies. If you had told me in 2010 that I would write reviews for over 700 war movies, I would have laughed and said "There are not 700 war movies". Well, it turns out there are a lot more than 700, so I still have a long "to be reviewed" list. Thanks to all who have followed this blog.
For this anniversary post, I chose a movie that is not well known. One goal of this blog is to introduce war movie fans to movies they have not seen. "Morituri" has a special connection to me because I watched it when I was at my grandparent's home after my grandma died. Funny how movies can be memorable because of the situation when they were watched.
“Morituri” is based on the 1958 book
by German author Werner Luddecke.He got
the title from the gladiator salute:“Morituri te salutant” (“We who are about to die, salute you.”).It was directed by Bernhard Wicki (“Die
Brucke”).The movie was a bomb, despite
its stellar cast.It didn’t help that
Marlon Brando had to be forced to do a publicity tour due to contractual
obligations.At his first press
conference, he said:“You will be unable
to proceed in life unless you see Morituri.”The studio shut down his tour.The movie was well received by critics and nominated for Academy Awards
for Best Black and White Cinematography and Best Black and White Costume Design
(for a movie that is almost totally on a cargo ship).It was rereleased as “The Saboteur:Code Name Morituri”.
The movie begins in 1942 Japan.A British colonel (Trevor Howard) blackmails
a German explosives expert into doing a special mission that will win the war.Crain (Brando) is a pacifist who left Germany
because of Nazism.The job is to disarm
the scuttling charges on board the SS Ingo, so it can’t be sunk before a
British warship intercepts and boards.The ship is carrying a cargo of rubber to France.For some unspecified reason that rubber can
not make it to the German war machine.(Don’t ask why the British don’t just sink the ship.)Captain Mueller (Yul Brenner) is an anti-Nazi
with a past.He lost a ship because he
was drunk.He does not welcome Crain
aboard because Crain’s false identity is that of an SS officer.Mueller’s executive officer Kruse is happy to
have a kindred spirit on board.The ship
has a motley crew that includes political prisoners who are being punished for
their anti-Nazi views.Crain secretly
meanders the bowels of the ship disarming the explosives.Things get complicated when the ship
encounters a Japanese sub with German officers on board.They transfer some American prisoners and a
Jewish woman named Esther (Janet Margolin).She has been raped several times, but remains feisty.The movie builds to a climax that includes a
mutiny and a change of Crain’s plans.
I saw “Morituri” when I was a
freshman in college and it was memorable.It took me several decades to watch it again.The film is not well-known, partly as a
result of it being deemed a failure.It
is an odd bird.It certainly has an
imaginative plot.Unfortunately, to get
where it is going, it has to jump through some hoops that make some of the
developments implausible.That does not
mean that the movie is laughable.This
despite having Wally Cox in the cast.He
plays a doctor who is addicted to morphine!It is actually a pretty good performance.In fact, the best thing the movie has going
for it is a good cast that gives fine performances.The pairing of Brando and Brenner is worth
the watch although neither had the movie at the top of their resume.(I found it sad to watch Brenner
smoking.He died of lung cancer and
before he passed, he made an anti-cigarette commercial.)The characters in the movie are
intriguing.Esther stands out in spite
of her being included to get a reference to the Holocaust into the film.The movie avoids most cliches, but it does
have the Cold War trope of a good German (Mueller) versus an evil Nazi (Kruse).
The movie is entertaining mainly due
to the performances.Another strength is
the Oscar-nominated cinematography.The
shots of Crain meandering through the insides of the ship are impressive.And you have to credit the screenplay with
being unpredictable.It does take a long
time to get there, but it’s worth the wait.
My
latest treadmill viewing was the Amazon Prime series “Three Days in the Life of
Lt. Kravtsova”.It is four episodes
totaling 184 minutes.It comes from Star
Media, the folks that brought you “Night Swallows” and “The Attackers”.It covers three days in the life of a young
officer on the Eastern Front in WWII.
Lt.
Kravtsova is green and this will be his first command.On the trip to his platoon, he is informed
that the average life expectancy for a lieutenant is three days.His platoon is a motley group who are
veterans.They don’t have high hopes for
their new leader.He wants to do right
and studies and memorizes his manual.They proceed to tell him how it really works at the front.He’s got some real learning to do and the
learning curve is steep.The platoon is
manning a trench with a no man’s land of about fifty yards separating them from
a German platoon.It’s basically a live
and let live situation, with occasional futile attacks.Kravtsova is told to stay low because snipers
only shoot at officers.The men are
skeptical of his leadership and when he leads an attack at first few follow
him.However, he is brave, if naïve, and
gradually earns their respect.Kravtsova
is caught between the platoon and his superiors.He has to follow orders from men who are
clueless about the actual situation at the front.When a major comes visit, he orders the
sniping of a German getting water from a stream in no man’s land.He is told this will break an unwritten rule,
but cares not.Meanwhile, romance is
brewing between Kravtsova and a local farm girl.This is building toward a suicide mission to
take out a forward observation post.The
mission happens on the third day.
“Three
Days…” is a typical Star Media production.It has a low budget feel to it.The trench set is fine, but small scale.No man’s land looks like a field and the village looks like a village
that was available for cheap.The
uniforms and weapons appear authentic.The acting is actually better than you could hope for.Alex Sparrow is well cast as Kravtsova.He is a rising star in Russian television and
music.Kravtsova is naïve, but sincere,
and he grows in the job.His wooing of
the girl (who is no beauty) is refreshingly chaste.The platoon members have distinct
personalities and you do care about their fates.As is true for Russian WWII television
series, the officer class is portrayed as mostly competent and empathetic
toward the soldiers.There is always a
villain, however.
The
weakness of the series is the confused nature of the combat.Most of the tactics make no sense.For instance, once they find out where the
observation post is, it would have made more sense to bombard it (which they
eventually do) rather than sending a squad.The combat is visceral and one no man’s land confrontation is combat
porn.At least with the action scenes,
you don’t have to rely on the subtitles.Star Media is notorious for its sometimes laughable subtitling, but this
series is the worst I’ve seen.Plus, I
often could not read them because they were set against a light
background.And often you would have to
be a speed-reader to keep up.
In
conclusion, I would recommend it for bingeing if you don’t require top flight
entertainment.It is short and the main
character is appealing.Just learn
Russian first.
“Drums
Along the Mohawk” is a John Ford (“The Horse Soldiers”) film set in the
Revolutionary War. It was based on the novel by Walter Edmonds. It was
nominated for one Academy Award – Best Supporting Actress (Edna May Oliver).
The movie was a box office hit.
The movie
begins in 1776 Albany, New York. Lana (Claudette Colbert) marries Gilbert
(Henry Fonda) and she leaves her upper class urban life for life on the
frontier on a small farm. Her new home is a log cabin. It’s quite a contrast to
the civilized life of the cities. It is a rough transition and she wants to go
home. Next scene we see her as a proper frontier woman. We all know she is
going to get there so why bother using film to show how she evolves?It’s tough life even if they didn’t have the
Indian and Tory problems in the valley. They are going to have to deal with
Indians led by the dastardly Caldwell. How do we know he is a villain? He has
an eye patch and he is played by John Carradine. Caldwell is balanced by a
friendly Oneida Indian named Blue Back (Chief John Big Tree). He’s a “good”
Indian. (I won’t get into the fact that Blue Back was a fool to support the
Americans.) The naïve Gil wonders why this is happening. “I don’t know why we’d
have trouble with the Indians.” Duh, you are taking their valley! There are
times when the pioneers have to take refuge in Fort Schuyler. It’s built of
lincoln logs. One of those times, Gil and Lana return to a burned out farm.
They are forced to live and work for a feisty widow named Mrs. McKlennar
(Oliver). It’s on now. Gil’s militia
unit marches off to get revenge. They should have taken their drilling more
seriously become back with their tail between their legs. This was the Battle
of Oriskany, but we don’t get to see it for obvious reasons. Gil claims that
the whupped the Indians, but in reality they got their asses whipped. For a
while, the valley is quiet and the farming is good, but that would be a boring
ending act, so we get another Indian/Tory siege of the fort.
“Drums
Along the Mohawk” is very much a John Ford film and is very much of its time.
It is basically a western set in the east. The Indians are evil, whooping
savages being used by the British. The only good Indian is the one who warns
them about Indian attacks. Ford directs many of his stereotype characters. The
cheerful drunk, the crust old widow, the anti-pacifist preacher, the pampered
young woman who is forced to adjust to frontier life. The cast is full of
recognizable character actors. Surprisingly, the cast includes an actual Indian
playing Blue Back. Chief John Big Tree appeared in over 50 movies. Fonda and
Colbert are excellent as the central couple. It can be argued that Lana is the
central character. The movie does not go to war with Gil. It stays with Lana.
She’s the one who is most impacted by life in the Mohawk Valley. The film is stolen by Edna May Oliver. The
Best Supporting Actress category was created for perfomances like hers. It
reminds me of Margaret Wycherly as momma York in “Sergeant York”.Oliver lost to Hattie McDaniel in “Gone With
the Wind”. No shame there.
Ford gives
a taste of life in colonial America. There is a church scene with a hymn. We
see a birthing. There is a wedding. All of this in vibrant Technicolor (Ford’s
first use of it.)It is a beautiful film
to watch. Ford interjects his trademark humor. The soundtrack fits the film
well and pushes emotional buttons to enhance the visuals. Although it has the
feel of an epic, it is actually only 104 minutes long. There is little action,
but there is a great chase scene (I bet you did not see that coming) where Gil
has to outrun three Indians to go for help. That’s right, Henry Fonda outruns
some Indians. (Thank God none of them had a bow and arrow.)
The movie
is actually based on historical events, even though it is based on a novel. It
has the feel of a chapter in a 4th grade American History textbook.
Some of the characters are historical persons, including Caldwell who was a
British agent who was a British officer who fought in several places during the
war. Sometimes he commanded Indian allies. He survived the war and fought in
the War of 1812. He probably did not wear an eye patch. Herkimer did die after
his leg was amputated after the Battle of Oriskany. The fort was not actually
in the center of the farmland. When it was besieged, it was garrisoned by
Continental Army soldiers, not militia. And it was attacked by British
soldiers. Because of the timing of the movie, it was determined that the
British could not be the bad guys at a time when America was looking at the
possibility of fighting on their side in the upcoming world war. The movie
resonated with audiences who could imagine the men going off to war in the near
future, just like Gil was forced to do.
“Drums
Along the Mohawk” is a must-see movie. It is Ford at his best with a top notch
cast. Like many of his westerns, it passes on the myths of frontier life. That
makes it a shaky history lesson. So watch it as a novel brought to the screen
in vibrant color.
My brother Jason recommended I treat this movie as a movie
about the making of a war movie. I had remembered it fondly as a teenager and
was happy to revisit it. It was directed, produced, and co-written by George
Roy Hill. It was a passion project for him. As a child he loved WWI aces and a
famous barnstormer named Charles “Speed” Holman.Holman set a record of 1,433 consecutive
loops during a five-hour flight. Hill himself
had been a pilot and flew transports for the Marines in the South Pacific in
WWII. In the Korean War, he flew night fighters. He reached the rank of major.
The movie
is set in the 1920’s in the waning days of barnstorming. Robert Redford plays
Waldo Pepper. He makes a living giving country folk rides in his biplane and
then joins a barnstorming troupe. After getting in trouble with new safety
regulations, he becomes a stunt pilot for a “Hell’s Angels” type movie. There
he meets a famous German ace (Bo Brundin).(He was modeled after Ernst Udet who had 62 victories in WWI and then
became a stunt flyer for airshows and the movies.) The movie concludes with a
dogfight between the two.It is arguably
the best dogfight ever put on film.
“Waldo
Pepper” is a must-see for aviation movie fans. The aerial scenes are some of
the best ever filmed. And we are not just talking about great stunt flying, we
are also talking about great stunt work like wing-walking. The planes are
awesome with the final duel between a replica Sopwith Camel and a replica
Fokker triplane.The sounds that are
matched to the aircraft are realistic.
The acting is fine, with surprisingly the best
performance by Brundin. The cast includes Bo Svenson, Susan Sarandon, and
Edward Herrmann. Redford is his usual charming self. He’ll remind you of Tom
Cruise in “Top Gun”. Coincidentally,
this movie boosted recruitment for barnstorming.That’s a joke.
What keeps the movie from being great is it is not sure what it wants to be. It starts as a whimsical comedy and then has a
major tonal shift midway through when a major character is sacrificed.From
that point on it becomes a psychological drama revolving around the old trope
of men who can’t let go of their glory days.What’s odd about this is Waldo did not even fly in the war.He wants the adrenaline that guys like
Kessler got.And he wants to experience the
mano-a-mano of a dogfight.And he
doesn’t want to wait for WWII.Neither
do we.
“The
Great Waldo Pepper” is not a war movie
and it could have used a deeper dive into the filming of a WWI aviation film,
but it is an entertaining film if you can overlook the flaws.It is an excellent homage to barnstormers and
stunt men.You’ll be amazed how far
pilots would go in the 1920s to earn a little money and entertain crowds.
The movie was directed by Hugo Claus (“The Lion of
Flanders”). It takes place during the Battle of the Bulge. Since I strongly
suggest you don’t watch it, I will summarize what you should avoid. An American
platoon pulls back because of the German offensive, but they forget to wake one
of the men.Harrison hooks up with a boy
named Richard and an old Belgian named Alfonzo. They are making their way to
American lines while trying to avoid the krauts. It is a war road trip picture.
On the way, the meet a mother who Harrison rapes after she flirts with him and
then has a change of mind. Harrison is something of a dick. Richard talks the
daughter into showing her breasts. There are no heroes in this film. There are
some fake German tanks they have to survive. They end up being captured by a
rogue American group led by a woman. At one point, Harrison shoots a dogs and
they eat it. By this time, you won’t care what happens to them.
This is one terrible movie. Its 5.8
rating on IMDB might have been inflated by perverts. Much of the actions by the
characters is ridiculous. It does have a lot of unintentional laughs. The
battle scenes are surprisingly big for such a miniscule budget. There are even
some flamethrowers which would have been used better to incinerate the film.
The characters are all unlikeable and very poorly acted. Rivet counters will
have heart attacks if they take the movie seriously. Insomniacs might like it.
The only thing I can say positive about my experience is that it lasted only 1
hour and 31 minutes. However, I was begging for it to end before the hour mark.
“Young Washington” is the new biopic of George
Washington’s early military career focusing on his role in the French and
Indian War. The film comes from Angel Studios which has become known for films
that have a tinge of religion to them. Its movies are “values-based”. It was
co-written, produced and directed by Jon Erwin. I taught American History for
decades and most of those years my American History course covered from after
the Civil War to recent American History. When the change was made to just
covering post-Civil War, I decided I could not teach an American History course
without covering the most important American. So, I started my course with a
unit on George Washington. My students knew more about George Washington than
90% of the people in our city. It seems trite to call him the “Father of Our
Country”, but it certainly fits. The movie has a couple of instances where the
young Washington could have died, which will hopefully cause viewers to
contemplate how lucky America was that this “indispensable man” was not killed
before the Revolution.
The movie opens with a taste of the Battle of Monongahela
which basically tells the audience to stick around for Washington (William
Franklyn-Miller), the action hero. It then flashes back to the 11-year-old
George mourning his father’s death. He is forced to forgo a formal education
because he is now the man of the plantation. His half-brother Lawrence (John
Foss) becomes his mentor. George is determined to become a British officer. The
film hammers the fact that Washington’s social status will make that
impossible. He flirts with Sally (Mia Rodgers), but she is a rung above, so it
is doomed. Thomas Fairfax (Kelsey Grammer) hires George to survey his lands. He
has his first brush with death. Then Governor Dinwiddie (Ben Kingsley) sends
him off into the wilderness to tell the French to cease and desist their
fort-building. This is British land. (George does not argue in favor of the Indians.)
This leads to an incident that starts the French and Indian War. It should have
ended Washington’s career, but he seeks redemption by volunteering to serve as
an aide to Gen. Braddock (Andy Sirkis). His attempt to share his hard-won
experiences in the new Indian style of warfare falls on snooty British ears.
The Washington we know was born in the debacle of the Battle of the Monongahela
which closes the movie.
Lets get the most important stuff out of the way first.
Is it an historical atrocity similar to “The Patriot”? No, but I would not show
it in class. Franklyn-Miller portrays Washington as an ambitious young man
whose career is not always upward. He occasionally gives a glimpse of Washington’s
temper. He has a tendency to speak in platitudes and is “value-based”. Young
Washington is debonair and adventuresome, notthe imposing, stoical older Washington. One recurring theme is “a pawn
can take a king” which is cringe-worthy since Washington was more of a knight
on the chessboard. His lower-class status is exaggerated, but the important point
the movie makes is colonial soldiers were looked down on by the pompous
British. The movie makes no connection to Washington’s later espousal
of independence.
Until the final act, I found myself hoping “Young Washington” will
be the first of a few films covering Washington’s life. And then came the last
act which was so silly, my enthusiasm waned. Until then, the coverage of
Washington’s career was acceptably improved for entertainment purposes.
However, the Battle of Monongahela is laughable. Washington makes three rides
through the battlefield and one run (in slo-mo, of course). He leads a charge.
He saves his men. He is targeted by Indian sharpshooters, but miraculously
survives. As usual, the silliest thing in a historical war movie turns out to
have some validity. That is if you consider Parson Weems to be a valid
historian.
The film is not low budget. We get a Fort Necessity that is
actually a big improvement on the real one. The sets and costumes are
appropriate for the period and we get some dancing which is accurately amusing.
The dance choreography is matched by the combat scenes which feature the volley
fire to make the reenactors happy and a melee to make the stuntmen happy. And
the audience, too. Or so the studio assumes. It is willing to overlook the
laughter from real war movie lovers.
“Young Washington” is not a bad movie. It will be criticized
because Angel Studios supposedly has a conservative, religious agenda. I found
that it did not force that on the audience. It does have some religious
references, but they are relatively subtle. It did not strike me as being
propaganda. Although it obviously is meant to tap into the patriotism of the
250th Anniversary, it does not avoid mistakes Washington made.
However, the last act overwhelms the “nobody’s perfect” vibe. The movie
actually spends more time convincing us the British officers were asses than
that Washington was a hero. British arrogance oozes from the screen. We got
independence from that!
By the way, if you are interested in a more accurate portrayal of
Washington’s early years, you can watch Netflix’s docudrama on Washington which
includes historians discussing his life and actors reenacting key moments. The
battle scenes are actually more realistic than those of the movie.
GRADE =C
HISTORICAL ACCURACY:Washington’s childhood in the movie emphasizes
his being deprived a formal education in England, but implies he was
self-taught by reading classics when in reality he did attend school. The role
Lawrence plays as a pseudo-father is realistic. The movie does a good job introducing
Americans to this key figure in his life. His flirtation with Sally is
overblown as it did not reach the “I wish I could marry who I want to marry”
stage. The surveying section is truthy, including his surviving a dunking in a
freezing river. In a typical example of historical license, Washington’s life
is not saved by his companion Christopher Gist because that would not fit the
legend. There was a Native American called the Half-King that Washington had
run-ins with. This gives the film the chance to imply the British were better
for the Indians than the French, which was the opposite of the truth. The
Jumonville Affair softens Washington’s role. In the movie, it seems the fight
began with an unknown person firing the first shot, although it implies it is
the Half-King or one of his men. In actuality, Washington gave the order to
fire. The movie gets Washington’s loss of control of his men right. Jumonville
was not the officer that Washington had dinner with in the French fort. The
movie rightly assigns the blame for the “assassination” of Jumonville on
Washington. He manfully accepts it whereas in real life he dodged the blame and
made the excuse that the translator messed up. The section on Fort Necessity is
well-done as far as the mistakes Washington made. The screenwriters deserve
some credit for not omitting that. His location of the fort was indeed stupid. The
battle is the first inkling that the combat in the movie is going to be
enhanced. In reality, it was very one-sided, but at least the defeat is
humiliating. One theme the movie presents, although probably not on purpose, is
the British were very forgiving considering Washington started a war and then
got his ass whipped.
Gen. Braddock does not toss him out of his office when he offers
to help him on his expedition. In fact, Braddock invited Washington by letter
to join the expedition. The movie does not make it clear that Braddock’s army
was slowly and painfully creating a road to the French Fort Duquesne. The movie
is accurate in depicting Washington suffering from an ailment (it was dysentery
and hemorrhoids), but he was not bedridden when the battle began. (He was
riding his horse while sitting on a cushion.) The climactic Battle ofthe Monongahela is where the historical
license goes off the rails. The movie treats the battle as though there were
two parts – an ambush of the main column in the woods and a separate engagement
of the Virginia militia in a field. This gives Washington the chance to
experience the chaos of the ambush and then lead his men to victory over their
adversaries. In reality, Washington organized the rear guard for the retreat. Washington did survive with bullet holes in
his coat and hat. His bravery in the battle was true. However, it was the
bravery of a man exposing himself to enemy fire while rallying the troops. It
was not the bravery of a man leading charges. Braddock did put him in charge and
Washington did step up under very difficult circumstances. The movie leaves the
impression that Washington prevented the battle from being a disaster when it actually
was. The movie is weak in the aftermath of the battle. It does not do a good
job portraying how Washington came out of the battle famous as the best
colonial soldier in the colonies. He was lauded for his leadership, not his
fighting ability. Surprisingly, the movie does not have Washington ascribing
his survival to divine providence, which is the way he explained it.
“Lucky Strike” is a caught
behind the lines movie set in the Battle of the Bulge. It was directed and co-written
by Rob Laurie (“The Outpost”).He is a
West Point graduate. It was filmed at a studio in Bulgaria.
The film uses the flashback method
to tell the story. A Captain (now Colonel) Castle arrives at the home of a Mrs.
Caldwell (Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor). Right off the bat, we know the main character
is going to survive. No surprise for a movie like this. (Also, this means
youwon’t have to yell at the screen when
he shows off his wife’s picture.) Caldwell is bitter because the Army has been holding
back her dead husband’s pension. Then its back to the Ardennes Forest for the
Battle of the Bulge. It’s the fourth day. You’ll have to take their word for
it. If you’re expecting hordes of German tanks, think again. A truckload of
black G.I.s is ambushed by a German tank. How is this going to connect to
Castle’s story? Wait. Castle is the commander of an engineer company. He is tasked
with holding a key crossroads to prevent the Germans from getting to an American
fuel depot. He leaves with five men. That’s one small company. And they don’t
go to a crossroads, they just sabotage some trees along the road. Bada bing, bada
boom, now Castle is on his own far from home. Luckily, he has his trusty “walkie-talkie”
which is named “Lassie”. The movie informs the audience that the 1st
SS Panzer Division are a bunch of cold-blooded killers. Do you think Castle
will have some encounters with them? Give yourself a cookie if you answered “yes”.
The rest of the film is an odyssey (ironic
because one of the previews before the movie was for “The Odyssey”). Castle has
a series of vignettes between radio talks to his pessimistic headquarters. Most
of those discussions involve the guy on the other end saying “Look, buddy, it’s
Hitler’s great offensive. We got bigger problems than rescuing one G.I., even
if he is Clint Eastwood’s son.” So, lucky for us, Castle will have to trek to
friendly lines. And with a bullet in his thigh. These vignettes include a tragic
encounter with a friendly Belgian family, stealing a tank, playing dead, a
visit to the truck with the all but one dead black G.I., being chased by artillery,
and meeting a another caught behind the lines victim. And then we return to Mrs.
Caldwell’s apartment for a twist I bet none of you will see coming. (Try not to
laugh, the old people in the theater might be offended.”
“Lucky Strike” is a WWII movie that would
be more comfortable in the 20th Century. Castle is far from an anti-hero.
This is a patriotic film and it finishes with a treacly song written by the
director. However, the patriotism is not overdone. Although, the anti-Nazi
theme is a bit much. Hell, Castle gets peed on by an SS soldier. It’s low
budget, but that mainly applies to the cast. Besides Eastwood, the only actor that
most people would recognize is Colin Hanks and he appears for about two
minutes. Most of the cast do not have Wikipedia pages. However, the acting is
not cringe and Eastwood does fine in a one-dimensional role. He’s stoical and
handles wounds like his father. Actually, the movie is the story of a threesome
– Castle, a Motorola SCR-300, and Lucky Strikes cigarettes. Cigarettes were a
fixture in classic movies, especially WWII movies. It seems anachronistic to
feature them in a 21st Century war movie. And especially odd to
feature a specific brand. I did some research and found out Lucky Strikes were
one of ten brands (the two others I recognized were Camels and Chesterfields). Before
you sniff at this, it turns out the cigarettes play a major role in the plot,
albeit a silly one. The cigarettes are in the plot for a twist. The Motorola
SCR-100 is in it for the adulation. It was a back-pack style radio with a
telephone-style receiver. The movie is meant to give credit to the walkie-talkie
(it was the first radio to be called that), but I did not pick up on that since
all the radio does is tell Castle to make it on his own.
“Lucky Strike” leads with the tried
and truthy “inspired by a true story”. As in, there WAS a Battle of the Bulge
and there WERE soldiers in it. Several of the vignettes are laughable if you
have seen a lot of war movies. I won’t give away those highlights, but you’ll
know them when you see them. It was heavily researched by its technical advisor,
who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. He apparently
insisted there be snow. However, he had less success on insisting on realism. Could
an American soldier drive a German tank? Possibly. Would a soldier in a low
budget action film be able to? Of course!
Eastwood was probably paid more than
half the budget, but the movie does not look cheap. The German vehicles will pass
muster for all but the most fanatical rivet-counters. There is a column of
tanks that does not look CGI. The cinematography is fine. The music does not bombast.
And the dialogue is satisfactorily bland. That all spells an average movie. You’ll
enjoy it if you don’t want above average. And you don’t have a reaction to
Lucky Strike cigarettes. I’m not easily influenced, but I did stop at the concession
stand on the way out to ask for a pack of Lucky Strikes. They didn’t have any.
Poor marketing.
GRADE = C-
Spoiler
alert: I researched the crucial plot point that G.I.s would always light their Lucky
Strike from the side with the label. You didn’t want to let the Germans know
the campsite was American. My research found that this was one version of the
Lucky Strike story. G.I.s would open a pack and immediately turn all the butts
around except one. Thus they lit the
label end first to burn it away. They left the last one with the label at the
other end as a “give me the luck to get to this one, oh great god of
cigarettes.” Another version was they did this just to remind themselves when
they got to the last one. If you made it, you had survived for that one pack o
time. And later died in bed of lung cancer.
“Heroes de Otra Patria” is Puerto Rican movie written and
directed by Ivan Daniel Ortiz. It was Puerto Rico’s submission for the Best
Foreign Film Oscar at the Academy Awards, but did not make the cut.The movie follows Carlos (Jorge Castillo) and
Raul (Jimmy Navarro) on a mission in Vietnam. Meanwhile, the film cuts back to
families in Puerto Rico.Carlos’ mother
and sister face eviction. This is meant to be comparable to the buddies being
lost in the jungle after their squad runs into an ambush. There’s a lot of
walking and talking in this movie. I counted 13 dialogue scenes.
The film is
very low budget and it shows. Sincerity can not make up for that handicap.
Ortiz wanted the movie to be a tribute to Puerto Rican soldiers in Vietnam. They
certainly deserve the recognition. Oddly, that tribute is out of sorts with the
overall tone of the film that sends the message that Puerto Rico’s involvement
in the war was amistake. It does seem a
little weird that he chose to describe Puerto Rico as another country. Besides
the low budget, the movie gives the impression that the actors did not rehearse
and every scene was one take. The two leads are fairly decent actors, but the
rest of the cast is amateurish. They look like actors playing soldier. The
movie does not have an authentic feel to it.
The movie
is too talkie. It has a very high percentage of dialogue and very little
combat. That might be a good idea because the action is laughable. The men have
no noise discipline. They are just stumbling in the jungle and the mission is
unclear. The hand-held gets too close to the men. It is clear that they are not
in a jungle environment.
I could be
snarky and say that “Heroes of Another Land” is the best Puerto Rican movie
about the Vietnam War, but I won’t because the film was made for a good reason.
The attempt to mesh the home front problems with those of the men was
well-intentioned. It just doesn’t make for compelling cinema.
“Pressure”
is the heavily promoted new WWII movie. The title has a dual meaning. It refers
to barometric pressure that is used to predict the weather and to the pressure Eisenhower
and his chiefs were under during the last days leading up to D-Day. The movie
was directed by Anthony Maras. The source material is the 2014 play by David
Haig. Haig and Maras wrote the screenplay. Brendan Frazer read several
Eisenhower biographies to prepare for the role and got his head shaved. In a
major coincidence, a grandson of James Stagg was hired as an assistant editor
to help go through 46 hours of archival footage.
The movie covers the last 72 hours before
the planned Operation Overlord landing scheduled for June 5, 1944. It leads
with the aftermath of Exercise Tiger. This was a practice landing involving
American troops landing on a beach in northern Great Britain that was similar
to the Normandy beaches. Hundreds of G.I.s were killed by friendly artillery
fire due to a communications error. The incident highlights the unpredictability
of any military endeavor. SNAFU is not mentioned, but it applies here. Eisenhower
is angered by the disaster, but also is reminded about how stressful future
decisions will be. Into the tension filled Allied headquarters comes James
Stagg (Andrew Scott). He has been sent to take over as chief meteorologist.
Stagg is a brilliant scientist, but he has a dour personality. He immediately
ruffles feathers with the American team which is headed by Irving Krick (Chris
Messina). Krick uses past weather charts to predict future conditions based on
similar situations. Stagg is dismissive of this approach and uses weather information
from weather balloons and other data to determine his forecasts. Krick insists
June 5 will be warm and clear. Stagg believes the opposite. He deflates Eisenhower
and his chiefs (including the very skeptical Montgomery (Damian Lewis)) by recommending
the invasion be postponed to June 19. Ike has a tough decision to make because
the forces are primed for June 5 and maintaining the secret landings for two
more weeks is daunting.
The movie focuses on the relations
between Ike, Stagg, Krick, and Kaye Summersby (Kerry Condon). Summersby is Ike’s
assistant and therapist. The latter role she assumes with Stagg who has the added
pressure of a very pregnant wife who he cannot contact for security reasons. The
actors are great and get their characters right, as well as looking like them.
( Not that that is important.) Credit to the casting director. The plot throws
in Montgomery for added dysfunction. In spite of the film being a joint French/British
production, the movie gives us the obnoxious Monty seen in movies like “Patton”.
He doesn’t care what the weather will be like on June 5 and tells Stagg to get with
the optimists. He accuses Stagg of losing his damned mind. This Monty will surely
be a crowd-pleaser in American theaters.
“Pressure” is based on a play, but it
does not have a stage-bound look. Most of it takes place in Southwicke House,
but it is not claustrophobic. It is, of course, dialogue-driven. This is not a
negative as it crackles. Ike can be volatile, Monty is pompous, Stagg is
uncompromising, Krick is egotistical, and Kaye is empathetic. It’s a nice
mixture.
Is a movie about weather forecasting
entertaining? Surprisingly, yes. In one moment aimed at the viewer, Kaye tells
Stagg that weathermen can be boring. Stagg gives a great defense of his profession.
And this exchange will go well with modern meteorologists, especially since
Stagg is going to become the most famous meteorologist in history because of
this movie. I do envy viewers who need spoiler alerts because they know little
about the role weather played in D-Day. War movie lovers know the basics from “The
Longest Day”, but “Pressure” fleshes out that small part of the movie in a
satisfying way. I have to admit I was skeptical whether a full movie could be
made about it. It turns out there was enough drama to make an entertaining
film.
“Pressure” is the type of war movie
that as I was taking notes I ended up with a number of plot points that I
questioned the veracity of. Upon research, I feel the movie gets a B for
accuracy. The biggest complaint I have is that in order to make Stagg the hero,
the movie writes out the member of his team that actually predicted the poor
weather and the window of acceptable weather. That man was a Norwegian named
Sverre Petterssen. The
conflict was actually between him and Krick with Stagg siding with Petterssen.
Most of the inaccuracies involve acceptable artistic license. For instance, the
relationship between Summersby and Stagg is overblown. However, the antagonism
between Stagg and Krick is spot on until a cinematic reconciliation. Speaking
of which, the last act is weak as the coverage of June 6 goes off the rails too
much. War movie lovers will be perturbed by the use of footage of paratroopers landing
in daylight! The movie leaves the compound for a shaky rendering of Omaha
beach. It was a play after all.
I recommend it and commend it for
being aimed at a diverse audience that includes women and the young who don’t have
any idea of the role weather played in a decisive moment in history. There is a
huge “what if?” covered in this movie. What if Ike had listened to Krick? OMG