Quo Vadis, Aida? (2020)

            “Quo Vadis, Aida?” (“Where Are You Going, Aida?”) is a Bosnian film written, produced, and directed by Jasmila Zbanio. It is a true story about the Srebrenica Massacre which occurred during the Bosnian War. Over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed in act of genocide by Serbian troops.

            Aida (Jasna Duricic) is a schoolteacher who works as a translator for the UN. The Serbian army is on the march in the region of Srebrenica. NATO tells the Bosnians to remain in their homes in the city because they will be safe! Soon, tanks move in and the civilians are rounded up. Many are killed, the rest are sent to a refugee camp run by the UN. Aida is in the camp, but her husband and sons are on the outside. She manages to get them in, but then the war criminal Serbian General Mladic arrives and offers to bus the refugees to another city. Don’t get on that bus!

            “Quo Vadis, Aida?” assumes the audience has basic knowledge of the massacre. That was a big assumption when it comes to American viewers. You don’t have to be well-versed on the Bosnian War to understand that the movie deals with a vicious conflict between ethnic and religious groups. When you throw in the well-meaning but toothlessly naïve United Nations, you get a massacre. You won’t trust the UN and NATO to safeguard you if you are ever in a refugee situation. However, the movie does a good job indicting those two organizations, but it does not do a good job demonizing the Serbians who committed the first legally recognized genocide since WWII. There are plenty of Holocaust movies that bring that genocide to viewers. “Quo Vadis, Aida?” botches its opportunity to enrage viewers. It is not nearly as harsh as movies like “Son of Saul”. It does not hit hard enough. Mladic is serving a life sentence as a war criminal. The movie does not make him a villain. All it depicts him as is a liar. Duricic is outstanding as Aida, but the character is not much of a heroine. She is not tormented that she aided the massacre. And the ending of the movie dilutes the impact of her experience.

            Movies about genocide should leave you drained. You should question humanity. They should not end with kids performing for parents. They should not soften war criminals. “Quo Vadis, Aida?” The movie needed to be “Why, Aida?”

 

GRADE  =  C

The Book Thief (2013)

            “The Book Thief” is based on the critically acclaimed best-seller by Marcus Zusak. The movie was directed by Brian Percival. The original score was by John Williams. He was nominated for a Oscar, a Golden Globe, and a BAFTA. He won a Grammy for Best Instrumental Album. The movie was a big hit. 

            Liesel (Sophie Nelisse) is a young German girl who is being raised by the Hubermanns. Rosa (Emily Watson) is an ass, but Hans (Geoffrey Rush) is doting. Liesel loves reading ever since she acquired The Gravedigger’s Handbook. She and her best friend Rudy are typical elementary school students in Nazi Germany. They are in the Hitler Youth, but participation in a book burning causes her to rethink her patriotism. She finds a kindred spirit in the Burgomeister’s wife. She invites Liesel to borrow books from her husband’s library. Hence the title. When the Hubermanns hide a Jewish boy named Max, she teaches him to read. The war has a deep impact on main characters lives. Have some tissues handy.

            “The Book Thief” is a war movie, but not really a Holocaust movie. The only Jewish character is Max. Liesel is a very appealing young lady and her love of reading hopefully inspires more young girls and boys to read more. I haven’t read the book, but my research indicates it has the expected changes when you adapt a young adult book to the screen. Characters were dropped and obviously scenes were eliminated for time reasons. Subplots were cut. (The book is 550 pages.) In a slap in the face of youngsters who have read the book, the movie is more upbeat. The Devil from the book only appears as a narrator at the front and back of the movie, with a little in between. The relationship between Liesel and Rudy is more of a romance than a big brother – little sister vibe. I did feel upon watching the movie that it did not have enough hardship. It piles all the heart-tugging to the end. There is little suspense along the way. The plot clearly aimed the movie at young adult movie-goers, rather than young adult readers. But it did well, so you can’t fault the studio for encouraging the changes.

            I found the movie to be entertaining, but inconsequential. Considering the fame of the novel, I did not find the movie to be impactful. I have a strong belief that a movie version of a book should be better than the book, unless the book is too fanciful or futuristic for movie technology to replicate. The screenwriter of “The Book Thief” had the template of a beloved book to build his screenplay from. He could have improved upon it, but he didn’t. However, if you are not going to read the book or your child is not going to read it, watching the movie is an acceptable option. The plot is close enough and the actors do a great job bringing the characters to life. I believe most readers found the actors to fit how they envisioned the characters they read. And the book does not have a soundtrack by John Williams, so score one for the movie.

 GRADE  =  C

MACARONI COMBAT #8 - Apocalypse Mercenaries (1987)

              

               I’ll give this much to macaroni combat movies, they usually don’t try to fool you with their titles.  This movie is a good examples of how this subgenre wears its low quality on its sleeve.  I suppose some people might mistake this title for a movie related to “Apocalypse Now”, but those people should be parted from their money.  I mean the $1 they spend at the discount bin at Walmart.

               If you catch this masterpiece while channel surfing after midnight, you won’t need to know the title.  There will be plenty of clues that you have run into a very low budget war movie.  First clue, there is an explosion in the first 40 seconds.  Clue #2 -  the head of the commandos has a really macho name – in this case, Halo.  Clue #3 -  the mission is one behind enemy lines -  in this case, they are going to eliminate Nazi headquarters in Yugoslavia.  Clue #4 – they hook up with a sexy partisan.  Clue #5 -  they blow a lot of shit up -  in this case, a train and an airfield.  Clue #6 -  they shoot from the hip, never reload, never miss.  Clue #7 -  the deaths are silly with the victims throwing their arms into the air.  Wait, you can see this in big budget war movies, too.

               I’ll try not to spoil the plot for you.  You’re welcome.  Halo and a four-man team are sent to wipe out a Nazi headquarters.  His four men include a flier, a doctor, a demolitions nut, and a Rambo-type.  They meet the female partisan who acts as their guide.  When Halo looks through his binoculars, he sees footage from another film.  This is the first of the unintentional laughs.  They take a side mission to destroy a train.  And then an airfield.  They get attacked by Nazi fighters (planes that look nothing like German WWII warplanes) that actually carry bombs that they drop.  Take that, much better films.  There are lots of bombs.  They use poison gas on the headquarters.  That’s at least different.  This all builds to the climactic battle that includes a dogfight and a giant melee on the ground. 

               “Apocalypse Mercenaries” could have been much worse.  It does have a lot of mindless action and the acting is not terrible.  The characters are all cliches, but you don’t expect originality in a macaroni combat movie.  The female partisan is actually not part of the problem.  It’s the males that are bargain basement action heroes.  Everything you expect, you will get.  It’s classic macaroni.  I counted 14 explosions (besides the bombs) and 10 laughs, none of them intentional.  All set to an aggravating score that manages to combine snare drums with synthesizers.  I suggest you watch it muted.  You do know the sound of an explosion, right?

GRADE  =  D

Pride of the Marines (1945)

                   Al Schmid was one of the most famous Marine heroes from WWII.  He was blinded defending a machine gun position against a massive Japanese banzai attack on Guadalcanal.  He was a good choice for a biopic to boost morale during the war.  Warner Brothers took up the task.  The book “Al Schmid Marine” by Roger Butterfield was adapted.  The screenplay was nominated for an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay.  It was directed by Delmer Davis (“Destination Tokyo” and “Task Force”).  It was a box office success.

                   The movie opens with narration by Schmid.  We get a tour of his home town of Philadelphia, including the Liberty Bell and Betsy Ross’ home.  Patriotism!  Early on we get a “gee willikers!”  It’s that kind of movie.  The first part of the movie establishes Schmid as the confirmed bachelor, but quite the ladies’ man.  He lives with a married couple.  Al:  “I live alone and like it.”  Jim:  “You  live alone and look it.”  Oh, 1940’s snap!  May sets up Al with a feisty woman named Ruth (Eleanor Parker).  She thinks he’s a “drip” and they hate-banter, so you know they are cinematicly destined.  After Pearl Harbor, Al enlists because “shooting Japs will be more fun than shooting bears.”  The second part skips the boot camp montage and plunges Schmid into Guadalcanal where one Marine says:  “I’m gonna dig this hole so deep it will be just short of desertion.”  Some of the slang we get:  dope, scuttlebutt, chow, smokes. The Japanese are called “nips” or “shambos”.  On the fateful night of the Battle of Tenaru, Schmid and two mates are in a fox hole with a M1917 Browning machine gun.  The night starts with “Maline, tonite you die!”  Response:  “Eat dirt, Tojo!”  Or if you want to be more specific:  “I’ll give you blood poisoning, you ring-tails!”  Unfortunately, one of those ring-tails throws a grenade that blinds Al.  The third part has Schmid dealing with his blinding and determined to avoid Ruth.  “Dear Ruth, I’m not coming back.  Good luck”. 

                   “Pride of the Marines” is slightly better than your typical WWII biopic.  The acting is fine from a good cast.  Garfield was a pretty big star back then.  He befriended the Schmids so he took the role seriously.  He really did not have the range for the role, but he’s appealing.  The dialogue has some good cracks in it, but it is fairly standard.  It keeps the patriotism down, except for one cringe-worthy scene among disabled veterans in the hospital which concludes with a terribly schmaltzy speech.  There is a clear theme of accepting wounded veterans back into society.  Give them a job!  Although a war movie, there is only one brief combat scene.  It is done on a sound stage, so don’t expect much.  It is pretty accurate in covering his Navy Cross-worthy effort.  The Japanese attack involved 800 men.  Schmid was wounded several times, but continued to fire for four hours, even after he was blinded.  200 bodies were found in front of their position.  He did go through a rough rehabilitation period, but I could not find out if the melodramatic romantic developments occurred.  I would assume Hollywood had some say on how his relationship with Ruth was portrayed.

                   “Pride of the Marines” is very much a product of its time.  Contrast it with more recent disabled veteran movies like “Born on the 4^th of July” and “Coming Home”.  In “Pride”, the hospital is almost like a frat house.  We’ve come a long way in handling the subject realistically.  But we have also become more cynical in handling our heroes.  Schmid deserved a movie and it does him justice, even though it is simplistic and overly patriotic.

GRADE  =  C