CRACKER? HART’S WAR (2002)

                “Hart’s War” is a POW / court room hybrid.  It’s like a mash-up of “A Soldier’s Story” and “The Great Escape”.  It is based on a novel by John Katzenbach.  It was directed by George Hoblit.  It was filmed at a studio in Prague.

                Hart (Colin Ferrell) is a green staff officer who has no worries about combat because he is a Senator’s son.  Unfortunately, the Battle of the Bulge sneaks up on him (it is quieter in this movie than others) and he gets taken captive by some of those Germans-disguised-as-Americans.  Within a two minute section, the movie also manages to toss in a reference to the Malmedy Massacre.  I was surprised they didn’t throw in McAuliffe saying “Nuts!”

Instead of the usual play, why don't we stage a
murder trial to break the boredom?

                Hart is interrogated by your typical suave Nazi.  He wants to know where the fuel dumps are.  You know, like the one at the end of  “Battle of the Bulge”.  Does Hart talk?  Unsure.  He is put on a POW train which passes by a train full of Jews.  Check that reference off.  At one point a P-51 strafes the train in a scene reminiscent of the crossing the Volga scene in “Enemy at the Gates”.  There are explosions, quick cuts, and generally frenetic running about.

                When Hart arrives at Stalag VI A, he is greeted by the sight of three Russian prisoners hanging.  The German commandant Col. Visser (Marcel Iures) is evil and the opposite of Col. Klink.  The ranking American officer is Col. MacNamara (Bruce Willis) who suspects Hart ratted out the fuel dumps and it turns out he’s right.  This conveniently results in Hart being relegated to an enlisted man’s barracks so the movie can move in a new direction. The plot is roiled by the arrival of two Tuskegee Airmen.  Would you believe they are not welcomed by the white soldiers?  In particular, a loathsome cracker named Bedford (Cole Hauser) who plants a tent spike in the bunk of one of the blacks which results in his execution.  Guess what racist ends up dead with the other black named Scott (Terrence Howard) standing over him?  In between we get the CGI spectacle of a German fighter getting shot down into the camp.  Cool.  Oh, did I mention the American fighter has its tail painted red?

Hey Southerners, look who came to
our slumber party!

                McNamara insists on a court-martial for Scott because he is accused of killing an American.  This is intended as a distraction to cover an escape attempt.  Visser agrees to this because… I’m not sure.  McNamara appoints Ferrell as defense attorney because…I’m not sure.  Visser helps Hart by giving him an American court-martial manual (which he keeps on his shelf next to his copy of Mein Kampf).  He does this because… I’m not sure.

                In the trial, Scott gets called to the witness stand so he can break the fourth wall and give a speech about mistreatment of blacks which mentions the better treatment of German POWs in the American South.  I would have squirmed if I did not know all this stuff already.  The speech is not maudlin and actually works pretty well.  McNamara is put on the witness stand so Willis can do his Jack Nicholson (“A Few Good Men”) imitation.  While all this is going on McNamara is supervising a tunnel to launch a raid on a nearby munitions camp.  The trial is just a distraction.  By the way, try not to be distracted by the fact that the destruction of the munitions plant would most likely rain executions on the prisoners.  No one argues whether it’s a good idea.  The movie closes strong with intercutting between the summations in the trial and the escape.  I won’t give away any of what happens, but it is pretty powerful if implausible.

a Nazi, a Democrat, and a Republican

                “Hart’s War” is a war movie for people who do not care about war movies.  It is aimed at the generic audience.  The producers appear to have doubted whether a regular prisoner escape movie would be profitable so they added a court room drama and then threw in a Tuskegee Airmen / Red Tails subplot so the film could have some gravitas.  The fact the movie did not do well at the box office tends to show that you shouldn’t structure a war movie based on demographics.  With that said, it is not a bad movie.  It is entertaining, if you can suspend disbelief and just sit back and watch.  The acting is good.  Willis is strong and seems to have bought into the character.  Ferrell is adequate.  Visser is sufficiently malevolent.  Terrence Howard should be able to play a Tuskegee Airmen in his sleep at this point.  The characters are not one-dimensional.  The dialogue is fine. 



                The major flaws in the movie are due to aiming at a mass audience.  The themes are trite.  Redemption of Hart from being a rat.  Sacrifice for your country and men (McNamara).  Honor is more important than life (Scott).  The biggest problem is that in order to develop the themes, the script has to pile on implausibilities and unrealities.  For instance, the whole opening scene where Hart is captured is absolutely ridiculous to anyone familiar with the Battle of the Bulge.  Even small touches can be aggravating.  In the trial, Scott claims to have shot down nine German planes in thirty missions.  No Red Tail came close to that figure.  Some cool twists partly make up for the predictability of the themes.  Another balancing factor is the production values are strong.  The camp is one of the best in the subgenre.  Real effort went into it.  The tunnel is also well done and similar to that of “The Great Escape”.  However, I’m not sure if reminding people of “The Great Escape” is a good idea when your movie is much inferior.

 

                Cracker?  Unlikely.  It is not even in the upper rank of POW movies.

 

GRADE =  B-

 

 

Alexander

              In 2004, Oliver Stone released his take on Alexander the Great.  Historians and other intelligent people feared what the “JFK” director might do to another historical topic.  It turned out “Alexander” was closer in integrity to “Born on the Fourth of July”.  I would hate to think that was a reason why “Alexander” was a flop.  Perhaps people prefer outrageous raping of history as in “JFK” to bland retelling like in “Alexander”.

                The movie opens with a quote from Vergil – “Fortune favors the bold”.  However, the movie makes a stronger case that fortune favors the sexually dysfunctional.  The movie opens like many a biographical epic by depicting the death of Alexander (Colin Ferrell), thus preventing the terrible shock to the audience if the hero was to die at the end.  An old man, Alexander’s friend Ptolemy, narrates from here.  We find out that Alexander was the product of squabbling parents.  Philip (Val Kilmer) and Olympias (Angelina Jolie) are in lust, but definitely not in love.  Poor little Alex.  On the plus side, he does have the greatest tutor in history (Aristotle) and the best horse (Bucephalus).  After hitting these three points, the movie suddenly jumps to the final battle with the Persians – the Battle of Gaugamela.  Ptolemy uses a map to get us there, but neglects to mention that two major battles and a famous siege proceeded Gaugamela.

                The Battle of Gaugamela is the big set piece.  It is epic in scale as seen literally from an eagle eye’s view.  The battle is a mixture of accuracy, inaccuracy, and accurate, but wrong battle. The phalanx (portrayed by 1500 trained Moroccan soldiers) is authentic as are the weapons and equipment.  Philip’s scythed chariots are dealt with tactically using the disputed “mousetrap” tactic.  The movie shifts from right, center, to left so it can be confusing,  especially for a battle that is confusing even for military historians.  There is a lot of “fog of war” here, or I should say “dust of war”.   Alexander experts will sniff that he did not fight on foot, his life was not saved at this battle by Cleitus (that was Granicus), Alexander does not throw a spear at Darius III, and Darius escaped on a horse instead of a chariot (that was Issus).  Still, its an acceptable rendering of a complicated battle.

                From this peak the movie grinds to a halt in Babylon with a lengthy discussion between Alexander and his more than BFF Hephaestion (Jared Leto).  Hephaestion is less than thrilled when his boyfriend marries a seductress named Roxana.  The movie has Roxane working hard to kindle Alexander’s heterosexual urges when the reality was that Alexander was more asexual than anything else and lost interest in Roxane soon after the marriage.  She was more of sad lamb than the determined tigress of the film. 

                At this point, Stone jettisons the linear structure and begins to bounce around hitting some of the greatest hits of Alexander lore.  We get hits like:  the executions of Philotas and Parmenion, Philip’s wedding banquet, and the killing of Cleitus.  All of them are admirably accurate.

                This leads up to the other big set piece battle which is not identified but is obviously the Battle of Hydaspes in India.  For some reason (probably to contrast with Gaugamela’s dusty plains), Stone stages this in a  jungle instead of on open ground along a river.  This is not the only dubious decision.  The elephant charge on the phalanx is well done.  The combat is frenetic and chaotic.  Alexander leads the cavalry to the rescue when in reality the elephant-fearing horses had to be rescued by the steady foot soldiers.  The cinematography is blood tinged and the action is surrealistic.  The climax is Alexander’s duel with an elephant which results in his and Bucephalus being wounded.  In reality, Alexander took an arrow during a later siege and he did not agree to return to Babylon because of the close call with death.  The movie concludes with Alexander’s death.

                The movie did not deserve the critical beating it took.  Some of that was probably residual animosity towards the pompous Oliver Stone who is actually pretty restrained here.  The task he undertook was daunting.  Alexander deserves a mini-series instead of a greatest hits montage.  And by the way, who chose to leave out the “Gordian knot” episode?  The movie is flawed because of the overemphasis on Alexander’s sexuality, something that would have puzzled Alexander and the Macedonians in general.  The screen time given to Roxane and Olympias is overblown as are their depictions.  Obviously Stone forced Angelina Jolie into more than was justified (especially considering she stayed clothed).

                The all-star cast is a disappointment.  Colin Ferrell is not up to the task of portraying one of the most charismatic figures in history.  The best comparison would be to Brad Pitt in “Troy”.  Pitt was much better in playing a similar personality.  Val Kilmer and Angelina Jolie are almost stunt casting.  The sets (especially the palace in Babylon) are awesome and the costumes match them.  The score was forgettable.  The action is epic, but there is also a lot of exposition and soap operaish moments.

                Cracker?  Sorry, no.  Alexander is still awaiting a great movie.

Rating -  6/10

POSTER -  It does have some of the main characters featured prominently and Ferrell mimics the side profile that Alexander favored.  It's a bit busy though and some of the peripherals are unclear.  It does refelct the movie fairly well.  Grade - B

the trailer

Roxane dance scene