Change Your Image
dtm-59003
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
London Has Fallen (2016)
Not in my country!
A somewhat condescending view of London portrayed here. Fortunately the quaint incompetence of everyone with a British accent (politicians, police, security service, SAS etc) is overshadowed by the nice-guy president and his superhuman bodyguard coming to town to liven things up!
It wasn't the fact that the Metropolitan Police Service had become riddled with literally hundreds of hardened terrorists (there have been vetting issues of late!). Nor indeed that our heros were able to drive at speed through the city over a number of miles - occasionally in traffic-free streets (congestion charging really works!). It wasn't even the wanton destruction of the city's landmark buildings with violent explosions or the thousands of innocent civilian casualties throughout.....
No. What completely ruined it for me was the cheering, high-fiving and blatant hugging in the police control room, upon the successful conclusion of events. Emotional outbursts of this nature simply do not occur here in the UK and this tainted the integrity of the otherwise faultless plot which had been thoroughly credible up to this point!!
Battle of the Bulge (1965)
One of the worst!
Without dwelling too much on the poor script, over-simplified storyline and rather stilted acting - this is one of the most inaccurate reconstructions of modern warfare to reach the cinema.
Why would anyone would choose to shoot a film in a country so unlike the real location of this conflict? The answer is that that country (Spain) provided the tanks and troops as extras. Given that it seems any tank with a cross painted on its turret would have sufficed - surely a more realistic battlefield could have been found. The Ardennes are a mass of wooded rolling plateaux with green fields around the villages - not the semi-arid, rocky Spanish hinterland with mountainous backdrops. The battle (which lasted weeks) was fought entirely during sub-zero conditions and in thick snow. In the opening scenes, even the German general assures Shaw's character that the poor weather will stop any air attacks by allied aircraft - yet the film is largely shot in perfect (Spanish) sunshine without a blizzard or fog patch in sight. The final tank battle scenes are filmed in perfect sunshine in the dry and dusty Spanish landscape with no snow at all. This is all totally contrary to what really happened and is frankly an insult to those who fought and died in this violent chapter of the war.
Ford v Ferrari (2019)
Not much to not like about it really!
A pretty good movie really. Tells a good yarn. Nicely made. Good cinematography. Good acting and good character chemistry. Lots of cgi but merges in quite well. Generally historically accurate. Nice plot in that it creates two anti-heroes battling against being the underdogs and battling against the ruthless ambitions of their own sponsors. Pretty standard stuff really. Bale's UK Midlands accent is pretty poor but just about better than Dick Van Dyke's cockney chimney sweep! Given that he is English it should be better - but he nevertheless presents a likeable character. Damon presents no surprises as the ultimate straight man - but he always does this well. It could have finished nicely without showing Miles' demise - a footnote would have respectfully sufficed. But other than this I'm struggling to really fault the film. Naturally it does gloss over certain aspects of the real story and outside of the USA no one refers to the race as the 24 hours 'OF' Le Mans - but does it really matter and does it detract from the overall story? No of course not. This is exactly what it says on the tin. No more and no less. I refer to my title.😀
Legion of Honor (2002)
Disappointing
Having recently read Simon Murrays factual book 'Legionnaire ' on which this is based - I tracked down the film. The result sadly lacks the grit and gruesome integrity of the book in almost all respects. The casting doesn't really help either, with the main character coming across as rather too honest and righteous compared to his colleagues. I had hoped that the film may have captured the atmosphere of the conflict in some respects but found it sadly lacking. Likewise the quandary of whether or not to support the 'Generals Revolt' coup attempt was dealt with on a rather local basis and contradicts and belittles what actually happened. Its not a well known part of world history outside Algeria or France so for this reason alone it is worth a watch - but don't make the mistake of thinking it paints a true picture of the conflict. To learn more take a look at 'The Battle of Algiers' which was banned in France for years, or even the rather cheesy 'Lost Command' (Anthony Quinn).
1917 (2019)
Entertaining but flawed.
I found the film watchable enough with some excellent acting. But while it did provide an interesting story it was seriously flawed in many respects. It is important to understand that after 3 years of total war, the frontline was NOT a narrow strip of mud and barbed wire with quiet green fields and lush woodland in abundance on either side. The front moved backwards and forwards regularly and the carnage spanned 50 miles at its narrowest point, with constant artillery barrages and sniping 24/7. Even in the quieter areas this was still to be seen and heard in the distance. With armies of millions of combatants there was a huge and constant logistical/supply network reaching many miles back behind each line. The chances of two soldiers wandering at will through the lines and into untouched farmland beyond are virtually nil because if such an unlikely situation arose they would be accompanied by thousands of their own troops keen to exploit any opportunity and capture even the narrowest strip of turf. The Germans did withdraw to stronger prepared positions on occasion but only in an orderly fashion with a strong rearguard and they were pushed and probed throughout by opposing forces. When the withdrawal stopped, the combatants promptly lined to face each other in this new position. The idea that 1600 men could pursue an enemy well beyond the battle zone on the western front with no logistical support is frankly mere fantasy. If such an unlikely situation did arise, the whole army group would be alongside them. Communications were difficult but contact with such a large group would have been maintained with a series of runners and signallers - even in the highly unlikely event of the group pushing so far ahead on their own. In 1917 this did not happen. I was a little disappointed to see the main character jumping into a raging torrent and being washed to safety down a deep limestone gorge filled with rapids and a huge waterfall - especially as I had seen this being filmed on the white water kayak course at the Tees Barrage (with the later cgi addition of rocks/gorge/waterfall). Anyone who knows the flat lands of Flanders or the slightly hilly Somme (ie the British sector of the front) will have wondered how the set suddenly moved to alpine terrain for this scene - especially given his short walk from the riverbank to the chalk lands of the final battle. Doubtless there are those who will think I am being picky but when the producers have gone to great lengths to create an authentic trench system with equally realistic no-mans-land and destroyed village, they let themselves down by failing to maintain that atmospheric authenticity throughout the film. I just wonder whether an overall historian gets employed in these productions, to shed some realism on the bigger issues rather than just costume and the finer points. I would liken it in this respect to two recent war films which started well but Lost momentum: Dunkirk which needed 300,000 extras not 300 (cgi?) and Fury which needed someone to rein in the big Tarrantino-esq unbelievable finish!
1917 is a watchable film but please dont make the mistake of thinking it captures the atmosphere of the Western Front because it actually falls a long way short. And I haven't even mentioned the similarity in the final storyline of Gallipoli, which is a far better film!!
The Green Berets (1968)
Hindsight is wonderful!
This film has been rightly slated over the years as history has clearly shown the folly of US involvement in Vietnam. Yet curiously when it was conceived, the general public were unaware of the imminent ramping up of combatant numbers and ensuing mass casualties on both sides. The movie was due for production in 1965 when the conflict was not yet widely condemned by US public - amidst the Cold War fears of the day. Indeed John Wayne and other production figures were fully supportive of US involvement at that time. Unfortunately by the time the film was releaesed in 1968 - the world was somewhat wiser and the film seems so dated in not only its obvious foolhardy political messages, but also in its cheesy plotline and even in its excessively grand musical score - more reminiscent of films from 20 years earlier!! The war became a shameful tabboo - much to the detriment of those who survived the horrors of conflict and subsequent films such as Apocolypse Now and Platoon were so negative in their portrayals of the war that the shortfalls of the Green Berets has been even further highlighted. Given that the producers must have been aware of the changing fortunes of US military intervention as production moved on, it is perhaps surprising that the film was ever completed. Its finished state shows it to be nothing more than a dated hollywood epic carrying a clear political message that the war was justified. As such it ranks alongside other propogandist productions which by the time they were screened were blatantly out of date and factually wrong. It is nevertheless worthy of viewing in order to see and understand these facts alone and ponder at the clearly outdated message that tge film intends to portray.