Civil War (2024)

 

Hey remember when Kirsten Dunst was a cute young actress? Yeah, seems like a lifetime ago doesn't it? But anyway, what's this flick about then? A prediction for the outcome of the 2024 election? 

Right so there isn't really that much to explain when it comes to the plot of this film. The US of A is currently under the control of an apparent authoritarian President and administration which is set to govern for a third term (the US President can only have two terms, hence the authoritarian bit I guess). But never fear, the combined Western forces of California and Texas are here to save the day! Not sure what the rest of America is up to during this spat but there you go. This film follows a small group of journalists who are on their way to try and interview the President in Washington as said Western Forces are closing in on the Capitol.

This film came out at a time when politics and the public mood in the US, leading up to the Trump vs Harris 2024 election, were at boiling point. So good marketing there I guess. Director Alex Garland had stated that the film was in no way supposed to be leaning one way or the other politically and definitely wasn't supposed to try and influence voters, riiiiight. I mean hey, come on, this is just my opinion but this was clearly a political statement surrounding Trump and his previous four year term, and the potential for his next four year term.

I found this film quite odd frankly...and somewhat triggering truth be told. For starters, the idea that the State of California and Texas would join forces to battle the Federal government (which is clearly conservative) is quite simply ludicrous. What about the other Western liberal States like Oregon and Washington? We are told that the current administration are authoritarian but we are not told why. Are they really or is this the liberal Democrat view on authoritarianism? We also learn that the Western Forces are secessionists, which in my book would kinda make them the extremist party in this story, the bad guys perhaps. But the Western Forces are obviously meant to be the good guys as we follow the plot from their viewpoint as the main characters follow their side. So I feel we don't really get a level playing field overall.

So we don't really know what the current POTUS has actually done to trigger this Western insurrection and we aren't told what the Western Forces are actually wanting. Yeah they wanna depose the President but with what intentions? As I said we don't really know who to root for here. The main characters also offer no real insights into the story or themselves amazingly. Dunst plays a war-hardened journalist who has PTSD from her previous travels. She wants to interview the President and at the same time is mentoring a young conflict journalist wannabe played by Cailee (Kayleigh?) Spaeny who is wet behind the ears and trying to toughen up in the face of much violence. Pound shop Pedro Pascal Wagner Moura is a journalist working with Dunst's character to interview the President. And Stephen McKinley Henderson is the elder mentor journalist in the group who doesn't need to be in the story. He's there for a predictable emotional death scene. Oh and two foreign born Americans turn up halfway through the story for no other reason other than to have a scene involving racism and America-first nationalism, because of course.

The story unfolds much like any war film whose point of view is from a specific soldier, usually fresh in the field. The small group travel from one harrowing emotional moment to the next in their 4X4. Each one is obviously supposed to toughen up the naive young journalist for her big predictable emotional finale where she finally sees through the blood and gore. It's pretty obvious that Dunst's character will also die seeing as she literally discusses the possibility with her young apprentice at the start. Said harrowing moments aren't actually that harrowing really, I've seen worse. It's all as you would expect, rogue groups of militia doing illegal things, bit of racism, moral quandaries, life being cheap etc...Highly predictable stuff.

The real meat of the dish comes towards the finale as the team join with Western Forces to storm the White House. This plays out much like any other Gerald Butler action flick and I had to keep reminding myself that it's actually supposed to be a serious dramatic sequence. The heroic (?) Western Forces storming the White House taking out hordes of secret service and various other forces still loyal to the evil (Republican) President. They murder any White House staff left alive, literally! Which again got me questioning who was supposed to be the good guys in this story. Eventually they crash the Oval office, drag the begging President out from under his desk, get him to beg a bit more, then execute him with extreme prejudice! They then pose with his corpse over the end credits! Geez!!

Now again, call me crazy, call me a conspiracy theorist, call me controversial etc...but to me this entire sequence played out like a Democrat wet dream. The whole notion of storming the White House to drag the current (supposed) authoritarian President (obviously Trump) out from under his desk like a snivelling coward (maximum humiliation) and then throw his ass in jail is exactly what many left-leaning people actually wanted to see happen (going by social media). Hell the Democrats spent most of 2024 trying to throw Trump in jail via any means possible so some elements of this film aren't too far-fetched.

I found this film highly amusing with its predictable cliches and generic plot. The only surprise being California and Texas joining forces which just seemed like a move to try and not make the plot look like left vs right. Essentially, think of 'Apocalypse Now' but nowhere near as good or harrowing with bizarrely poor musical choices and you're kinda along the right lines. Everything was so obvious, I literally had a checklist of cliches and tropes in my head that were mostly all ticked off as the film progressed. Add to that the fact that everyone and everywhere claims this film wasn't influenced by any current day politics is just laughable. I think people just didn't want to acknowledge the obvious. This is essentially what the Democrats thought was gonna happen at the end of Trump's first term back in 2020. Anyway, the film was well directed, well made, and well shot without breaking the bank, but overall it's incredibly generic with a vague plot and characters.

4/10

Dunkirk (2017)

Christopher Nolan's latest offering is an accurate representation of an event that occurred in 1940 during WWII. British, Belgian and French troops were cut off within Dunkirk, surrounded by advancing German troops. The allies were literally fish in a barrel to the German forces. They were stranded, being attacked from both land and air with the sea to their backs, nowhere to run.

Situated in Northern France, Dunkirk was the location of the massive evac operation which saw large numbers of British civilians man their own vessels in order to assist with the rescue. Up to 400 various manned craft were voluntarily used and braved the English Channel along with various military vessels. Despite the fact that German forces had halted their crushing advance on Dunkirk (giving the Allies some time to organise the evac), the Luftwaffe were still hitting the port and its beaches and enemy troops were still on the ground.

Nolan's film tells the story of Dunkirk from separate angles, land sea and air. The first angle is from a young British private called Tommy (Fionn Whitehead) who has survived a recent German ambush and has made his way to the beaches. We follow Tommy as he tries to get on-board a couple ships only for them to be sunk by German attacks. Tommy eventually ends up back on the beaches with some Scottish soldiers and a French soldier. The second angle is from RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy) and two other Spitfire pilots who are part of the British airborne resistance against the German bombers. And the third angle is from a Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), his son Peter and his sons best friend George. All of whom have volunteered to help in the rescue with the aid of Mr. Dawson's yacht.

First off Nolan's film is not like most traditional films. There is very little dialog throughout the entire runtime; instead Nolan relies on pure visuals and the musical score to convey the films atmosphere. That is where the film may be problematic for many people, this isn't a war movie filled with blood, guts, gun battles and explosions. Obviously if you know about the actual historical event then you would know to expect this. The most dialog comes from the story surrounding Mr. Dawson and his son Peter, second to that would probably be Tommy's story, then lastly and most obviously is Farrier's story which is almost entirely conveyed through Tom Hardy's facial expressions.

Now whilst I did fully appreciate Nolan's vision here, I have to admit to finding it somewhat odd watching a movie like this with little dialog. Looking at Farrier's story (the air section), it was indeed very impressive to watch these old Spitfires dogfight with German Messerschmitt's. Naturally it wasn't shot in the typical Hollywood action sequence type way. What you get are highly realistic air sequences which show the planes trying to manoeuvre into position to be able to attack each other. When the attacks come they are short bursts with very little fanfare. When a plane gets hit nothing much happens at first. The pilots communications are brief and not filled with silly quips. Basically overall it kinda feels like you're watching some kind of airshow display or training video, the fact everything is shot in natural light kinda adds to that.

The story surrounding Tommy is probably the most Hollywood-esque part of the movie, but it still may not please some. Once again this is a highly realistic vision, there are no 'Saving Private Ryan' sequences on this beach. The plot is straight forward, Tommy and another soldier try to board ships by using an injured soldier as their ticket essentially. That seems almost wrong but in the grand scheme of things who wouldn't do that? The fact that they try to get away twice and both times the ships are sunk did seem almost too unlucky to me. The fact that later on they reach another ship and yet again it gets sunk, kinda felt a bit overly dramatic perhaps. Did that many ships get sunk in the real event?

Tommy's tale certainly has the most cinematic visuals of the film, the numerous shots of the troops lined up on the beach are incredibly haunting, yet beautiful. Its easily the most intriguing of the three main plots but at the same time its also a bit too 'Spielbergian' methinks. When Tommy meets up with the Scottish soldiers things get a tad by the numbers and a little dull. I also felt the death of the French soldier (who was thought to be a Brit) was again a little touch of Hollywood which maybe wasn't required. It was too predictable, the minute he is exposed as French you kinda knew his number was up. I should add that whilst all this is going on we get little snippets of Kenneth Branagh as a Commander overseeing the operation from the beach. Again like Hardy he tends to emote through facial expressions more than dialog.

For me the weakest of the stories was following Mr. Dawson and his son. Call me shallow but this was simply because it wasn't really that interesting. I found myself yearning for the plot to get back to the beaches, or in the air with Farrier. Don't get me wrong, Mark Rylance puts in a great performance as the calm and steadfast Dawson, and its important to see the civilian angle of this story. The thing is it just wasn't really that intriguing watching this trio sale slowly towards Dunkirk.

The subplot of them rescuing a stranded officer (Cillian Murphy) from a shipwreck was also something of an odd addition. Murphy's officer is shell-shocked, he argues about going to Dunkirk and tries to stop Dawson. This leads to George (Peter's best friend) falling and badly injuring his head...which leads to his eventual death! I really didn't see the point in all this because it goes nowhere. Dawson and Peter lie to the shell-shocked officer about it and that's kinda that. Neither Dawson or Peter came across as upset when the incident occurred or when George dies. You're left wondering what happens with that. Does the officer get done for murder upon return to England? Would he be let off because of the fact he was shell-shocked?

Would I say this is one of the greatest war films ever made? In terms of realism yes. In terms of score, cinematography and craftsmanship yes. In terms of engagement (for me the viewer) I'd say its up there, but maybe not the best. I totally and utterly shower praise on Nolan and co for their vision and what they have achieved here, the authenticity being the number one factor of course (score not far behind). But I cannot deny the film is a little slow at times. I hate myself for saying this but I did find myself yearning for just a touch of romanticised heroism or emotion just to get those waterworks going.

The final sequence showing Farrier taking out one last German bomber before he is forced to land in enemy territory from lack of fuel, was so fecking awesome. Seeing the Spitfire land in one shot on the Dunkirk beach was fantastic, as was seeing a stoic Farrier stare into the camera as he is captured and led away. But dagnabbit Chris, I just needed a hint, a mere drop of glossy sentimentality. The film was so realistic that it didn't really feel like a film at times (again I hate myself for saying this). But bottom line, this film is a tour de force that ignores manufactured heroics and stereotypical Hollywood-isms.

9/10

The Great Wall (CH/US, 2016)

K so in China there is this huge wall that was slowly constructed over the ages by various Dynasties. The earliest construction starting back in the 7th century BC. This great wall ran along the ancient border of northern China to protect against various groups of invaders from various areas that now make up some of eastern Europe, Mongolia and mainly Russia. This is fact, but this movie deals with legend (but not a real one).

The plot: A band of European mercenaries are in China searching for the magic black powder that kills many (gunpowder). After losing all of their men to Khitan bandits in the region, the last two mercs, William (Matt Damon) and Tovar (Pedro Pascal), stumble upon the great wall (unsure how they didn't see it). There they discover a special division of the Imperial Army of the Song Dynasty called 'The Nameless Order'. Turns out this special division was put in place to protect the Chinese Kingdom from a race of alien monsters (yes that's right, alien monsters). Unfortunately for the Europeans this must remain a secret so they are held captive indefinitely. Luckily they both display great courage and fighting skills when the aliens attack which pleases the Chinese, so they end up helping with the struggle.

Yes its an age old tale which we've all seen a fair few times for sure. The question is does this movie get around this cliched plot and give us something special? Well first things first, lets look at the enemy, the alien monster horde. For starters the design is absolutely terrible, truly, this is no lie. The woeful CGI doesn't help its case of course but what the fuck is going on with that design? It looks like something from the 90's, I can't even describe it. Its kinda like a mutant alligator crossed with a vicious dog, with its eyes just above is fronts legs, a mohawk and some gills down its back for communicating in high pitch screams.

These aliens apparently came to Earth via a meteorite that struck a mountain, which turned the mountain green because...I don't know. This happened two thousand years prior to these events, sooo...did these aliens evolve in that time?? Whatever happened it must have happened quickly because there are apparently millions of these aliens. This in turn leads me to ask how on earth these aliens haven't been discovered by anyone other than the Chinese yet?? How have the aliens not managed to overcome the wall thus far considering how great in number they are. Why do they always attack the same spot on the wall? Why not somewhere else or split into two separate attacks? Are there other attacks elsewhere on the wall we aren't seeing? Why do they only attack every 60 years??? Seriously what is that about? Are they hibernating in the meantime?

The aliens also appear to be somewhat invulnerable because they can only be killed by being struck in their incredibly small eyes?! So...no other body part being struck has any effect?? We also learn that these aliens have a Queen and she controls the hordes via their high pitch calls (with the gills). But we also learn that if the Queen is neutralised (or killed obviously), so that the rest cannot hear her calls, the hordes will freeze or sleep or just become statues or something. Oh and there's some crap about magnets hypnotising the aliens into a deep sleep, whatever I dunno. The ideas and story behind these creatures are so stupid and messy I can't believe they went ahead with them.

Lets take a look at the Chinese warriors in this movie, The Nameless Order. Well each warrior is split into individual units with special skills and different colour uniforms/armour. For example there are the archers which wear all red armour and the, ahem, acrobatic unit which wear all blue armour. Oh and the acrobats are all women. Yeah seems a bit unrealistic for an entire unit to be made up of women, but I know women warriors did exist back in ancient China so I'll give that a semi-pass. Now all these units make perfect sense...except for the ladies unit. These female warriors bungee jump off the top of the wall, spears in hand, to attack the aliens below. It sounds exciting but is in fact completely and utterly pointless and merely offers juicy meat for the aliens to snap up. Seriously, with all the arrows, flaming boulders, harpoons, spears, explosives etc...taking out lots of aliens at a safe distance, why would you need women to leap to their inevitable deaths simply to skewer one single alien?

This leads me onto the wall itself. This isn't just a simple wall, oh no, this is a wonder wall with lots of hidden features that are revealed by moving sections. Not only can soldiers exit at the foot of the wall through secret moving wall sections; half way up the wall also reveals sections that allow giant scissor-like blades to thrash out and dismember climbing aliens. The interior of the wall is also highly intricate with lots of rooms, corridors, prisons, machinery, store rooms etc...They also seem to have a never ending supply of ammo like arrows and giant circular boulders, oh and they have hot air balloons too.

I have to mention the bewildering amount of deus ex machina moments in this movie. There is so much it just makes a mockery of the entire thing. The whole sequence where William scales down the wall to capture an alien, in thick mist, is one long joke. The moments where the Chinese rain down arrows, explosives and flaming boulders onto the ground below, completely blind due to the mist, but conveniently miss William is laughable. Then of course Tovar saves William out of literally nowhere, like where the fuck did he just come from?? There are so many shots in the movie where a character is saved at the last second, or something happens and they avoid certain death. Or a character makes some miraculous shot or move or whatever in slow motion (oh my God the slow motion!!). I've never groaned so much in my life!!

Both the Chinese and western cast are acceptable but nothing special. Damon's historical action figure has got nothing on Kevin Costner's Robin Hood, or Mel Gibson's William Wallace. Pedro Pascal is actually a little more engaging with his little touches of comedic relief, even though its pretty simple, amateurish stuff. Willem Dafoe is here but it doesn't matter because his character is unimportant and does nothing. And the Chinese actors are generally as you would expect, taking it all too seriously whilst not acting too well (but they have great hair). And yet again I have to address controversy (almost every bloody movie now). No this is not whitewashing because Damon's character isn't supposed to be Asian, he isn't replacing an Asian actor. His character is European, a European mercenary which was common at the time. Is this a white saviour movie? Hmmm...it could be, but not entirely, Damon doesn't really save the day. But even if it was, who the fuck cares eh??

I really do get the impression this movie would possibly have done really well, had it come out back in the 90's. This really felt like a cheesy, hokey 90's CGI schlock fest that would have been lapped up at the time (due to the wonder of early CGI). I mean, I really really wanted to like this movie as I liked the premise, but its so fucking stupid with so many issues its simply impossible. It does looks good at times (landscapes) but then at other times it looks like a Lord of the Rings wannabe with all the Chinese warriors looking like old colour-coded Lego men. It starts off OK but just becomes more and more absurd as it goes, until we reach the abysmal ending. This really is a thoroughly dated movie in every aspect.

4/10

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Mel Gibson apparently never got the memo from Tinseltown. The man who was blacklisted by Hollywood has slowly, over the years, kept plugging away with various projects that could almost be seen as giant middle fingers to the industry. Its almost as if Gibson has upstaged Hollywood by displaying just how damn good of a director he actually is. You can almost feel the awkward shuffling in seats as the Hollywood top brass realise what they've been missing out on for the last ten years or so. Yes Mel is back with another corker, a biographical war epic based on actual events from the Battle of Okinawa, WWII, 1945. And yes its loaded with religious connotations as you would expect.

So briefly, based on the actual events in the life of one Desmond Doss, a Seventh-day Adventist from the state of Virginia. After getting into a scrap with his younger brother and nearly killing him by accident, Doss turns to his religion and completely renounces violence of any kind. Years later he meets up with Dorothy Schutte, a nurse at the local hospital. Doss slowly gets into a relationship with Schutte whilst slowly gaining an interest in medical procedures, helping the wounded. With the outbreak of war, both Doss and his brother enlist in the army much to the distress and anger of their father. Upon reaching boot camp in South Carolina Doss quickly discovers that his aversion to using any weapons based on his religious beliefs, does not go down well with his commanding officers or fellow recruits.

After beatings and unfair abuse from his drill Sergeant (on orders from the commanding officer), Doss is eventually brought up on charges and pending a court martial. Luckily Desmond's father manages to avert his imprisonment with a letter from his old WWI buddy who is now a very high ranking officer. Doss is therefore allowed to train as a medic and go into battle as he pleases, unarmed. Its whilst in the thick of battle on the island of Okinawa that Doss displays great courage, strength and compassion for not only his fellow troops, but the enemy as well.

So lets just dive straight into the main crux of this movies story, the fact that Desmond Doss refused to carry, use or even touch a weapon because of his religious beliefs. Now apparently this is all pretty factual which amazes me frankly. I mean good on this guy for standing by his beliefs (God knows how that would go down these days) but holy bananas! I can see why his fellow recruits and officers grew so tired of his bullshit. All through the training sequences in this film I was frustrated, the fact that Doss refused to even touch a weapon just frustrated me. Not because I'm a gun loving lunatic but because I just couldn't get my head around the fact that this guy wouldn't hold a weapon. In peace times sure, understandable, but during WWII?! How the literal flip did this guy survive I just don't know.

In order to gain a pass for some leave every soldier is required to pass basic training, which included weapons training. Doss obviously hadn't completed this and is refused his leave pass by his commanding officer. Doss explains that he intends to get married on his leave and begs for the pass, but he is refused. Doss is told he can have his pass if he can just prove that he can handle and load a rifle...Doss refuses. I was like...DUDE!! TAKE THE GUN AND DO IT FOR THE SAKE OF YOUR WIFE!! Even when it came to facing a court martial (which I believe didn't actually happen, it never went that far), the man still wouldn't handle a weapon. His wife is there in tears as he sits in a military jail awaiting trial, his commanding officer and drill Sergeant all begging him to just hold a weapon, just once...and he still refused. I was literally biting chunks out of my sofa cushion. Yes there are principles but there is also a bit of common sense, come on!!

Like other military flicks I actually found the training section of the film (at the start) the most engaging. Yes I know that might sound strange but meeting all the different soldiers we will be following, finding out what type of persons they are, meeting the predictably stern and shouty drill instructor and watching him abuse the men etc...its kinda fun. Its here I will give kudos to Vince Vaughn who gives us a wonderful performance that was totally unexpected. I never saw Vaughn in this type of role, never in a million years...and he's really good! OK sure the entire segment is essentially a complete rip-off from 'Full Metal Jacket' with the various soldiers and their silly nicknames. Plus Vaughn's drill Sergeant isn't a million miles away from R. Lee Ermey's drill Sergeant truth be told, but its all good and he's easily the best thing in the movie for me.

The actual war segments of the film, well half of the film, are of course the real meat and potatoes. Here we see the young Doss risking life and limb to save his fellow compadres from certain death, all the while without a weapon upon him. Its insane to actually think this guy actually did this, it almost seems like fiction to be honest. We see numerous amounts of men getting cut to ribbons by machine gun fire in seconds. Men getting blown to smithereens left, right and centre, bodies everywhere, its hell on Earth. Yet despite all that, skinny Doss sprints across the barren wasteland, ducking and diving, dodging danger like a ferret and never getting hit. He finds one man after another, treats them, carries them back to safety, hell he even gets forced down into the Jap underground tunnels and treats a soldier down there! All without being discovered, getting injured or even seen! This is why at times I felt like I was watching a superhero origins flick.

Whilst the film is amazingly accurate and harrowing at the same time there were still things that nagged me. Some of these were really quite blatantly obvious too such as the knife that one soldier gets stuck in his foot right at the start of training...yet this doesn't go anywhere. The dude has a big hunting type knife stuck in his foot. Drill Sergeant Vince Vaughn sees it, pulls it out and the man goes off into training? No treatment for that then?? Whilst Doss is up on the ridge pulling injured men to safety and lowering them down the cliff, even though other soldiers have noticed this, no one feels the need to climb up and help him? Then there was the fact that these soldiers at the bottom of the cliff, apparently, didn't report any of this till much later. Which we find out later in the film when it eventually does get reported that someone is lowering bodies down the cliff. Lastly, I don't know how accurate everything is in this film but the ending did seem very Hollywood-esque to me. Expected I guess but I would of preferred a more down to earth approach which it may or may not have been admittedly.

This is a Mel Gibson movie and by now I've come to expect greatness from old Mel. Was this great? well yes and no to be fair. I did enjoy the movie, it did engage me and it was at times emotional, but its not the greatest war film I've come across even though its very good. Its obvious the religious aspect is probably what attracted Gibson to the story in the first place, and he certainly makes the most of it (Doss getting lowered down the cliff face at the end being the clear symbolic religious highlight for sure). But that aspect doesn't cloud the movie if you're worried about that. The film is ferociously violent once the fighting kicks in no doubt about that, is it the most violent war film I've seen? Hmmm...maybe, not too sure. Kudos to Garfield for his portrayal of Desmond Doss, he clearly went all out and lost weight to fit the bill, not only that he does look like the man too. Admittedly I wanted to slap the guy across his cheeks half the time but I guess that's a performance well done. I should also give kudos to Hugo Weaving as Desmond's father with a truly gritty, bruising performance showcasing the man's many demons.

At the very end we get some real archive footage of the real Desmond Doss being awarded the Medal of Honour by President Harry S. Truman. Desmond himself, Desmond's younger brother Hal and one of Desmond's commanding officers Jack Glover.

7/10

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

The fictional epic sea yarns of Captain Jack Aubrey during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 1800's. This movie is an adaptation of a series of sea naval novels by Patrick O' Brian. The plot and characters being comprised of various segments from various novels in the Maturin series, the main two being obviously Master and Commander and HMS Surprise (there are 20 novels in the series).

The story starts of seeing Aubrey (Russell Crowe) of the HMS Surprise under attack from the French vessel (Privateer) Acheron, the very vessel Aubrey is under orders to seek and destroy basically. The French ship is stronger and faster leaving the Surprise heavily damaged, nevertheless Aubrey carries on with the hunt. The British follow the ship to hell and back through savage storms and freezing weather conditions trying to stop the French from attacking British whaling ships. Eventually whilst docked within the Galapagos Islands they stumble across the French and see an opportunity for attack, but in order to secure victory Aubrey must come up with something devilishly cunning in order to get in close to the French vessel.

Now admittedly this plot might seem dull if you think about it, blokes on old galleons, old fashioned Euro politics, period costumes, stiff upper lips everywhere etc...but you'd be wrong. The movie starts with a bang as Aubrey must fend off the French frigate that appears out of a thick sea fog like a ghost. The flash of multiple cannons is seen in the fog and the Surprise is hit seconds later in an explosion of timber. Men and boys scurry for their lives as various wooden features across the ships main deck are torn apart by the blast, showering everyone in splinters. The frigate emerges from its advantageous position to the shock and annoyance of Aubrey, hundreds of men toil feverishly to get the ships guns primed and ready before the frigate can come about for another attack. Aubrey remains cool and collected as he prepares himself, 'sharp shooters to the top Mr Howard', 'stand tall on the quarter deck son, all of us', 'Mr Boyle, run up the colours', 'note for the log Mr Watt'...as he is handed his tricorne. The Surprise is hit again and again, men are blown inwards by the shells, cut to pieces by the shrapnel. Those that are still alive are dragged down below for the ships doctor Maturin (Paul Bettany) to try and keep alive in his blood soaked quarters. The two warships are now virtually on top of each other, the Surprise heavily damaged with a smashed rudder. In desperation boats are dropped full of men to tow the lame Surprise as the French Acheron closes in. With luck the Surprise is pulled into another fog bank and manages to evade the French frigate, all is calm.

From this one sequence you can see how much of a rip-roaring epic this movie is gonna be, it also highlights the immense levels of realism and authenticity on display. So lets talk about that, the realism. Well for starters most the of scenes were filmed on a huge full scale replica of the HMS Rose (later renamed Surprise in honour of this film), a ship based on a 17th century 20 gun frigate. Now admittedly you can tell this, or I could, by the way the camera always pans around the hull of the ship and never drops below to actually show the sea, but apart from that this large set on gimbals is amazingly realistic looking from bow to stern. At other times the cast were shot on-board the real HMS Rose to capture some awe-inspiring panoramic shots at sea. Sure I don't exactly know how an 18th century vessel would look, but I have a rough idea like many people would, and what we see here is really impressive right down to the tiniest details. The main deck is a mass of ropes, rope ladders and knots, draped, hanging and looping all over the place. Everything is of course made of wood which naturally seems very fragile but rigid (the fear of splinters plays on ones mind), the doctor uses sand on the blood soaked floor to get a better grip when dealing with injuries, hourglasses are used as a measure of time, and everything is generally very dim because only candles light the way.

Its not all about battles and blood though, much of what we see is simply natural life on-board ship as they sail from point to point. The officers quarters are, as you would expect, spic-and-span with a grand but not overly lavish trim. The ships top gentry may enjoy a fine drink in the Captains quarters whilst discussing their next move, or they dine together whilst surrounded by their lower ranking officers, or the Captain and the doctor might engage in some classical music renditions utilising cello and violin. This one aspect shows their upbringing, their well-rounded, cultural backgrounds, as does their boardroom-esque arguments which often swing from strategy to philosophy again displaying the wealth of knowledge both men have. On the flips side the lower sections of the ship are a much darker, bleaker affair where the grunts sleep in hammocks, space is limited, the air is probably pungent and where sickness most probably spreads very easily, although the top decks wouldn't escape that either. Yet despite this its clear to see that Aubrey is a decent man, a well-rounded, genuine, good Captain who cares for his crew no matter which station. He is of course stern but fair, displaying strength and leadership when needed to keep his men in line and loyal to him, but the crew clearly show they are happy to follow their Captain.

Overall on a visual standpoint this film is damn near perfect as far as I'm concerned. The sets and props are all faultless, the costumes are authentic, every actors hairstyle looks actually genuine, the workings of an old 18th century ship seem spot on, the knowledge of the day medically and universally, and distance shots of the Surprise at sea at various times of the day are breathtaking. The fact they managed to film on the Galapagos Islands was also a notch on the movies belt for sure, the film is chock full of money shots.The film also teaches and informs you along the way too. Its amazing to think so many men managed to all cram on-board a ship like this, that there was actually enough room for them, enough food and water etc...It also shows you how strong men must have been back then, when you see the pitch battle between vessels, wood being blown into millions of deadly splinters, bodies flying, blood, limbs, smoke, the noise etc...How on earth did the Captain manage to keep control?! its incredible how every man knew what to do, each and every one of them all very important cogs and gears in a large machine.
It also gets you thinking about the little things, like what did they do with wet clothes? did they have other spare clothes or were they often wet? Did they really manage to rebuild parts of their damaged ship as we see in the film? At the start the Surprise is hit hard and badly damaged, yet the men toil like worker ants and get it all shipshape again, is that accurate? I did also wonder about the whaling ships too, like why were the French so obsessed with sinking British whaling ships? I'm guessing because they were carrying precious blubber which would later be transformed into oil? Did these ships really have many young, high ranking boys on them? You see a good historical film makes you want to know more.

Director Weir definitely captures the essence of a long period at sea, the loneliness, desperation, boredom etc...But this is alleviated by the addition of subplots which allow us to get to know the various crew members better. This being another of the films plus points, the fact that all the characters are well fleshed out, we see small story arcs , we care about them, from the bottom of the barrel, to the officers. On one hand we have the situation where one of the young officers is having real problems instilling discipline amongst the men, he is weak willed and at times shy, the men do not respond to him and refer to him as a 'Jonah'. Then we have a situation where the good doctor is accidentally shot by the Marine officer (who was trying to shoot an Albatross), and must undergo surgery, performed by his own hand with the help of his friend Aubrey. We also see the doctor performing major surgery on an elderly sailor whom we follow throughout, and we see the conflict between Aubrey and Maturin as one wants to defeat the French, and the other wants to push science. 'I command a King's ship, not a private yacht, we do not have time for your damned hobbies, Sir!'. Finally there is the young officer Blakeney who comes under the tutelage of Maturin and Aubrey but for very different things. The young boy shares a passion for biology which Maturin is happy to encourage, where as Aubrey is slowly instilling a sense of authority and honour into the boy, so he can himself, one day, captain a ship. Both main leads show their true character with this development whilst at the same time showing how they play off each other and the crew.

It may sound a tad boring to just follow this band of men around the seas on-board an old galleon, especially as the movie does have that strong vibe of passing time, but this passage is so thoroughly engaging I fail to see how anyone could not get caught up in the adventure. Especially seeing as the producers even went as far as to change the setting from the 1813 Anglo-American war to the 1805 Napoleonic wars so as not to offend any American audiences (ugh!). Nevertheless this film has pretty much everything you could want, its virtually perfect in every field from visuals to acting to score. A rousing high seas adventure with tense, realistic, heart-pounding action. Grand in scope, and deep on human character.

10/10

1941 (1979)

After a gigantic Diplodocus sized dump of success with his first two big mainstream movies, one about a large fish and the other about some annoying little brat that gets kidnapped by aliens in ice-cream cone shaped UFO's, the one and only Spielberg had complete and utter control over everything. Strangely enough, much like his best mate George Lucas, this power went straight to his head and he came up with this odd little feature. Still to this day I'm not really sure what his intentions were or whether I actually like this or not, it certainly doesn't seem or feel like a Spielberg movie, not in the slightest.

The plot is an odd mixture really, set in 1941, it basically sees a Japanese submarine led by Toshiro Mifune and Christopher Lee (a Nazi), on course to try and hit the western coast again just after the recent Pearl Harbour attack. The US is on high alert after the bombing, paranoia is running amok but there is a real risk of another attack. During this time we follow multiple storylines involving various characters within the US military that eventually all combine at the finale. You have the unhinged John Belushi as Wild Bill Kelso who flies around in his Curtiss P-40 fighter and...errr little else really. I kinda get the impression Spielberg mainly stuck him in because he was a big star at the time and was virtually a package along with Dan Aykroyd. Meanwhile, a tank crew consisting of Aykroyd, John Candy, Mickey Rourke, Treat Williams and  Frank McRae are on their way to a military base or just on patrol due to the recent attacks (not really sure), and getting into all sorts of trouble. Sitarski (Williams) is after a young girl who is also the target of the young whippersnapper Wally (Bobby Di Cicco), both of whom are trying to take her to a local dance contest.

Meanwhile!! Major General Stilwell (Robert Stack) is trying to control everything from the general public to his inane troops in the midst of this supposed pending doom from the far east. There is also a love story going on between Tim Matheson and Nancy Allen that flits in and out of the other sub plots, Slim Pickens is kidnapped by the Japs and interrogated on-board their sub, Ned Beatty and  Lorraine Gary get an anti-aircraft gun stuck in their backyard, and Eddie Deezen is stuck atop a ferris wheel overlooking the coast for the pending Jap invasion. In short, the entire thing is a horrific muddle of plots that intertwine with each other, and basically they all focus on one thing, the Japs invading the west coast and everyone going crazy with paranoia over it. The only twist is, the Japs actually are and do invade the west coast confirming everyone's paranoia, but it then leads to even more batshit happenings as everyone tries to combat them.

Apparently this mishmash of a plot was actually based on some real events from the era. This probably explains why its such a mess, because they based the movie on several different events. The first being the supposed and infamous 'Battle of LA' whereby LA apparently came under attack from a mysterious object in the sky. No one knew what it was, but they shelled it anyway, because hey...Merica! Other events were the bombing of an oil refinery in California, an incident where an anti-aircraft gun was indeed stuck in someone's backyard, and something called the zoot suit riots. Basically lots of migrants flooded the State from Mexico to help the war effort, as did lots of marines and sailors, aaand they all ended up fighting each other. Twas called the zoot suit riots because at the time zoot suits were trendy and many young Mexicans (and others) wore them.

In all honesty this movie is such a mess, you really have no clue what's going on and why half the time. Sure there are young blokes in uniform fighting over dames and other crazy blokes in uniform doing silly things, but that's it. The whole thing is like one long long large action sequence, or riot, it doesn't stop! The plot sinks below this constant barrage of high octane hijinks including a lot of fisticuffs, big dance routines, cockpit tomfoolery, sloppy romance, mass destruction of everything, lots of gunfire and loads of screaming into the camera. There is no way in hell you'd think this was a Steven Spielberg movie, not a chance, its like some cheesy, cheeky, high school flick filled with jocks and nerds in a constant raucous.

Now even though most of what you see is an absolute headache of noise, it all looks terrific. Overall it may not come across like your typical Spielberg movie, but in terms of visuals and special effects, it definitely has that classic old Spielbergian (dare I even say...Lucas-esque) vibe going on. All the period sets, props and costumes are wonderfully detailed and highly authentic looking. You have all the classic cars, planes, machinery, electronics and weapons spot on from the era too, everything from the radios, the local diners, to the decorations in the dance hall, it all looks gorgeous, far too good for such a throw away flick like this really. I must also give much kudos to the model work on display towards the finale, a full scale town mockup I think, also included were a lot of decent bluescreen shots (for the time), solid interior (exterior) plane and sub sets and I think some matte painting work going in places. The full gamut of special effects wizardry going on which you come to expect from these old action movies, but they still hold up very well.

The cast is clearly another big key element and hook with this movie, its like a who's who of the time. You have some epic actors like Lee, Beatty and Mifune alongside crazy comedians like Candy, Aykroyd and Belushi. Much like the movie its a real mishmash of talents that don't really gel together in my opinion. Mifune is clearly taking his role as a Jap sub commander pretty seriously, Lee is also coming across as an eerie Nazi officer (kinda like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'), but then Spielberg sticks Slim Pickens in a scene with them. Its also evident that the studio wanted more of Aykroyd and Belushi because of their SNL fame at the time, unfortunately there isn't really anything for them to do and it feels like they are just crowbarred in for exactly that reason...their SNL fame. Seriously, Belushi doesn't need to be here at all, his character is good for like...one visual gag. Most everyone else is young and upcoming admittedly so it doesn't feel like overcrowding in that (big name) sense, but there is clearly way too much going on, too many characters jockeying for space, too many little plots going on. Also far too many silly cameos that just weren't needed, it felt like some kind of big variety show or Spielberg giving all his mates sweet little plum bit parts for no real reason.

In the end this movie really feels like a misfire, I'm honestly not sure if Spielberg really knew what he wanted to do here. Its suppose to be a zany comedy but its not really very funny at any point, although its zany enough. Plenty of action and pep as everything zips along but its so disjointed and uneven, I'm still not really sure what Wild Bill Kelso was supposed to be doing, or why he's even in the film, and apparently Christopher Lee's Nazi got killed by being thrown into the sea? I guess he couldn't swim? One issue that springs to mind is the fact everything this movie is based on (and sends -up) is the history of California, and virtually unknown to most. Sure you could say that about many things but the events this movie are based around feel even more minor than usual, as though its a big in-joke for the people of California (those in the know). Alas many probably haven't got a clue so it just comes across as a daft, meaningless screwball comedy that just isn't funny. I guess one last plus point now would be the nostalgic factor, looking back at this amazing ensemble cast, won't see anything like that again.

5.5/10

Fury (2014)

I do believe this is the first war film I've seen based around a tank crew...yep! The movie is set in the final days of WWII as the Nazi's are retreating back towards Berlin and the Allies slowly take back Europe. The story is fictional but based around a few actual events and people such as Lafayette G. Pool and Audie Murphy (so I've read). It follows a small five man tank crew as they push deeper into Germany taking control of a small town, dealing with prisoners and locals and eventually being handed orders to defend a set of crossroads for a vital supply route.

OK so this being a modern war film it doesn't skimp on the blood and guts no sir. War films these days are a far cry from when I was a kid as I'm sure many know. There is no holding back as bullets blow soldiers heads off, rip through their bodies with blood spurting everywhere, limbs and corpses strew around, people hung from street lighting, bodies being bulldozed into mass graves etc...in short this film is very graphic. To be honest this is a good thing because it really does show what these conflicts were probably like, its not like a videogame with multiple lives and power-ups, war is real shit and scary shit at that.

The first engagement sequence where the five Sherman tanks are attacked by heavy artillery and trenched troops really shows what it would be like to have high powered weapons (MG42) firing bullets in your face. The sound effects are incredible here as the bullets seem to zing past your own head but it also shows how insanely easy it was to get blown away in the first five minutes. Another sequence that really brought the danger crashing home is when the Allied regiment takes a small German town. As the troops and tanks slowly crawl through the streets clearing the buildings one by one they are hit by hidden snipers and more MG42's from windows high up and cellar openings. The powerful MG42 machine gun fire from one cellar blows one soldiers leg clean off as it wipes out a group of men in seconds. Its truly heart stopping as the gun fire gives your speakers a good pounding and bullets zip through men like a hot knife through butter, alas we still cannot break away from obvious CGI blood.

Yes the visuals are top notch all round with accurate weaponry, uniforms, vehicles, buildings and locations, its very highly polished production of course. As for the story...weeeeell not so much really, its a predictable slightly generic affair truth be told, it lets the project down really. On the other hand what else would you expect I guess. But come on...they use the oldest most cliched trick in the book, the new recruit who joins the team with zero war experience and nobody really likes him. The other guys pick on him, make fun of him and don't really help him out, not even the Sgt! We follow this wet behind the ears rookie as he discovers what war is really like, the horrors, the violence...even by his fellow troops. Hell his Sgt even forces him to execute an unarmed prisoner of war. Naturally as time moves on he becomes more at ease with the situation and the other men finally accept him as one of the team...yep cliched is an understatement.

The other oldest cliche in the book would be the simple last man standing routine the plot goes down towards the end. You can see it coming a  mile away and sure enough the moment comes when instead of fleeing the oncoming Germans the Sgt decides to make a ridiculous stand against all odds. Sure enough all his men decide one by one to stand by their Sgt and also commit suicide in this last stand. Romantic, heroic and balls of steel no doubt...but unbelievably cliched and stupid at the same time.

This leads to the biggest problem in the movie, the characters and the fact they're all A-holes...even Brad Pitt. Yes the whole crew are a bunch of annoying shits that I couldn't get behind at all. You are suppose to be rooting for these guys but you can't because they're all so generally unlikable. Don't get me wrong the performances are solid, each member of the cast holds his own and does a good job (including LaBeouf) but the characters they play are just soulless nasty grunts. The worst of which being Coon-Ass (don't blame me that's his actual name) played by Jon Bernthal who is basically an uneducated, illiterate (I'm guessing), uncaring bully who has been at war too long. There is always a character like this in war movies admittedly but this guy constantly gives the rookie a hard time and is virtually blind to the horror unfolding around him. What really annoyed me is the other guys, who aren't as bad, do nothing to stop him, in fact they back him up and laugh with him...which kinda makes them all scum basically.

So that was a huge issue with the movie, the tank crew you're suppose to be caring about and rooting for are fundamentally unlikable so you don't really care what happens to them. Its only at the very end do you start to care for these guys as they each get killed off...yet I still ask myself why. Its only with Brad Pitts last dying words do you actually give a shit about his gruff character with the silly haircut. The fact he kills unarmed prisoners didn't help his case from the start. That also got me thinking...did the Allies really execute unarmed prisoners of war during WWII? I'm sure its possible but I've always been led to believe that our boys didn't do that kind of thing.

There were some other minor negative bits that stood out for me. The German tanks and artillery seemed to be useless shots, in the field battle sequence the Allies were in clear range with no obstructions yet the Germans missed them constantly. The Allies were virtually shooting blind at a line of trees and bushes yet they hit their marks every time. Also did anyone else notice the Allied gunfire was red whilst the German gunfire was blue? it looked like a laser battle from the future. I know its tracer fire but did they use that in WWII or was it so we (the audience) could see what was going on?
Lastly that entire sequence where the Sgt and the rookie meet two German women in the town they took control of goes on way too long. This sequence starts off OK showing a bit of humanity from the Americans until the Sgt lets the rookie have sex with the youngest woman as if it was a reward, she then falls in love with him straight away oddly. Despite that things are seemingly going OK until the rest of the crew barge in and it all goes down hill, which was one of the reasons why I didn't like any of these characters.

Its a raw depiction of the era for sure and its certainly engaging showing us the joys of a deadly cramped life inside a mobile steel shell, but there are so many strange elements that just didn't sit right with me. Mainly a crew of misfits led by a man who shoots an unarmed prisoner in the back at one point then helps out two innocent women the next...where do you stand with this guy?! The final last stand was also way too far fetched and typically Hollywood which really made me think this was a simple action flick disguised as and attempting to be a thought provoking war movie. It was almost more about the guns and war machinery than the human element...but undeniably exciting nonetheless.

7/10