War Film

Wonderful depiction of the events of Christmas 1914, when soldiers from different sides of a conflict shared communion together.

This joyous film, spoken in English, French and German, keeps fairly close to the events of the time (my only quibble really being the character of the Scottish chaplain, but that aside, the film, is truly life-affirming). At the same time it reminds us of the danger of dehumanising (and deindividualising) the enemy - or, indeed, as happened in this instance, of seeing him as an individual.

The cinematography is obviously derived from "Saving Private Ryan", but this is a better film.

One of my all time favourites, this is a movie that has not only influenced a lot of people to take an interest in Cambodia, but has been used in parts of the world as a teaching aid to illustrate the aftermath of civil war.

Although I've given it 5 stars here, it does have one fault that still grates on me (one that is quite well known now, I guess): The ever-controversial song at the end. I agree with the producer, David Puttnam, that the film needs something at the end to lift the audience from the weight of the events, and the song (which was #1 around the world at the time of Pran's escape) may have played well amongst preview audiences, but its message is wholly inappropriate. Leaving that aside, the film's understated manner gives one of the greatest visualisations of a dictatorial regime from our recent history. And, even though it's now more than 20 years since I saw this in a theatre, the film still reduces me to tears whenever I see it. Sam Waterson's portrayal of Schanberg is incredible, and the film gains merit for not flinching from showing him in quite a poor light. But how many of us would have emerged cleanly from that situation? That Schanberg was more concerned that the truth be told than that he was seen as a hero (which he certainly wasn't) is a credit to him, because I have to admit, I sympathise a lot with Al Rockoff who believes that a fair amount of responsibility rests on Schanberg's shoulders.

Many people now know that the person playing Dith Pran was a Cambodian refugee who also endured a similar experiences under the Khmer Rouge, and it must have been painful for him to revisit his experiences.

This is a moving story that never descends into hopelessness, and I'd love to see the original edit of this with the footage of the Vietnamese involvement and Schanberg's breakdown. Ah well, maybe sometime it'll happen.

Das Boot, in all its versions is a very accomplished work, though I prefer the middle length of this, with the directors cut, rather than the mini-series, which is a little too slovenly. Tempers fray as the tension mounts, and you can feel the grime, and almost the smell of a U-boat crew at sea during world war II. Great stuff, and a refreshingly human film from a lot of the usual war dross, which in recent years have replaced real thinking with abstract and retrospective sentimentalism.

I killed a man. Worst thing you can do. ... I killed a man and no-one can touch me for it.

Considering the economics of Terrence Malick's movies it's amazing he continues to obtain the funding necessary for them. It's not like they have particularly small budgets. However, I am very glad he does get funding for his endeavours, because we need to see movies like his.

The events of The Thin Red Line are embedded in the battle for Guadalcanal in 1942. But this details of the history are incidental to the film's content. You learn little, if anything about the Pacific conflict per se. Rather the setting provides a focal point for philosophical meanderings on the nature of man. It is a cinematic poem, and we are immersed in images and sounds of exquisite beauty as the story unfolds, and the principle characters speak their inner thoughts on evil, love and loyalty. As a personal note, as I watch the film again the cinematography is so vivid I sink into the warm light of California, like the images draw me home, and the images of soldiers in the morning dew flood me with memories of the British mountains I used to hike in.

If this film has a fault it lies in the preponderance of stars in what amounts to cameo roles - Nick Nolte, John Travolta, Woody Harrelson, John Cusack and George Clooney all make brief appearances. And when they appear you see the star rather than the role they are playing (John Travolta was notably bad, walking around the deck of the ship like he was a catwalk model). It is said a condition of the studio was that Malick had to cast five stars from a list, and perhaps this is why they are seen here. But it's a shame. Also, the depiction of the Japanese in this is a little odd, since they are little more than moving stills on a canvas. For the most part this reflects either the director's understanding of them (I hope not), or simply that the focus of the film does not demand that they are fleshed out better.

I can't guarantee you'll like this film. You might find it self-conscious and overly ponderous. You might be put off by the noble savage images at the beginning (something addressed later in the film), or by the war content. But I can tell you I liked the film, and saw it as one of the best films of 1998.

Au Revior Les Enfants is widely acknowledged to be based on the childhood memories of the director, Louis Malle, and he handles his material with a tender heart. But it is a sad memory to commit to film, from one of the darkest of times in the twentieth century. As such, while it is not graphic in any way, watching this film will burn indelible memories of sadness and shame on your mind.

This was a great film that suffered - as do so many films - from being made outside Hollywood, and as such was cursed to a limited distribution. But I guess, even within the system such films rarely get the audiences they deserve.

Tense action in this well filmed recollection of the tragic events in Somalia. The film's one major fault is the insignifcance given to Somalian lives as they are killed by the hundred. Still, an amazing piece of work from Scott that does remind us of the events in Somalia that are often forgetten.

Clint Eastwood is certainly developing a style for himself in social drama. Admirable attempt to expound the propaganda machine of war.

Quiet and moving biopic about a Welsh poet during the first world war. Lovely piece of work. I'm told to get the full emotional impact of the thing it helps to speak Welsh (because of the poetry). Ah ha. Alas my only claim to fame about the Welsh language is that I know how to pronounce the title of the movie

Sorry guys - patriotic stirring stuff that attempts to show the horror of war, but it also perverts history and people in order to bang home its message. Why is every character a caracature? Why is not mention made of the allies? Why is the story such sentimental tripe? This film destroys the truth for emotional clap trap.

Utter bilge, and a travesty to all involved in the capture of the enigma machine.

I don't think the Redux version adds much narrative value - the first edit is largely fine. A good version of Heart of Darkness, but as a Vietnam film? I don't think there is any Vietnam film that has much content beyond "Oh, the angst!" - except The Killing Fields, but this is more concerned with Cambodia.

This film depicts a class of schoolchildren in the Polish ghettos of World War II, and when it came out it was eclipsed by Schindler's list. This is a shame, because in many ways it's the better film. It's hampered, of course, by the fact that not only is it in black & white, it uses less well crafted photography. Oh, and it's not in English. But, it shies away from the sentimentalism that plagues Spielberg films, and threatens to undermine their messages. Korczak doesn't stray into the melodramatic intensity of Liam Neeson's speeches, or the melodramatic buffoonery of Roberto Benigni. Instead, in keeping the story telling quiet and not making bludgeoning appeals to the audience, it is all the more moving when tragedy strikes.

Having said this - there is one way in which Schindler's List wins over this one: it's determined to remain upbeat despite the circumstances of the protagonists. This immediately gives it a wider audience (and means you don't mind seeing it twice), and it is important when telling a good story, that people can hear it. And that is I guess, one reason why Korzack is so hard to find these days.

Ernest Gordan's biographical account of his experiences in a Japanese POW camp, in the book, Miracle On The River Kwai is actually a story of hope, not despair. Indeed, while he mentions the difficulties undergone in the camp, he does not dwell on them. As his story unfolds, he comes to this conclusion: Who is mine enemy? Isn't it my neighbour. God makes neighbours; we makes enemies... that is where we excel. It is central to the theme of the book, which is ostensibly the story of his coming to faith in Christ, along with many other camp inmates.

And that is where the problems start with the film. While this story hung around in Hollywood for 40 years before being finally made, there is no way anyone is going to take the central theme of the book and make it into a film. Nope. Fear of offence? Maybe? Fear of excluding potential audiences? Definitely. But if you do that, there is little left in the book.

So, what we have is a same-old, same-old retread of the horrors of Japanese POW camps, with an added theme about the benefits of having a faith. Then, of course, someone needs to add an American hero to the movie, in the form of Kiefer Sutherland. Nothing is left of the material.

On top of that it is limply directed, and lacking in the budget necessary to drag this kicking and screaming into something worthy. Sad.

David Lean tackles Pierre Boules' novel about Englishmen captured by the Japanese during WWII and who decide to make a good job of the bridge across the River Kwai in order to show British superiority.

Hmmm.

As I said, it's based on a novel - not on real life, but we'll get to that in a bit.

Put aside any emotional reaction you might have to the integrity of the story, the acting is okay (though is Guiness not trying a little too hard at times or is it just me? I've not seen it in a while), and the directing manages to capture the period well.

So, yeah, the film is fine enough. But can you really take away your feelings from the integrity of the story?
I have to disagree with those in Hollywood who say, in answer to criticisms about historical accuracy when depicting historical events, "It's only a film - who takes them seriously? We have no responsibility for historical accuracy"

The trouble is that people do believe Hollywood films. It reminds me of 1984: He who controls the past controls the future. I think there should be a responsibilty to maintain some accuracy, or otherwise openly admit its fiction.

This film upset British (and other) veterans of that period, because they did not comply with the Japanese - but did everything they could to prevent the railway being completed.

Released in 1943 it would be surprising if this were not to some extent jingoistic. And indeed it is. Yet it is also so much more. It is a film that is quick to introduce us to a German soldier who acts throughout the film as a voice of sympathy for Germany. He impassions in the audience the pain of defeat.

The narrative sense of the film is so very keen, driving forward the story by the simple addition of an animal head to a wall, or the flickering pages of a journal. More than anything else it is a truly tremendous essay on growing old.