Edge of Tomorrow (2014) Tom Cruise at His . . . Weakest?

Edge of Tomorrow

Why did I even bother watching Edge of Tomorrow? I had a feeling I wouldn’t like it and I was right. The story as such isn’t bad, though.

A US military officer, Tom Cruise, is brought to London to help in a war against aliens. He clashes with the British commanding officer and while he didn’t want to go into combat, as he’s inexperienced, he wakes up, handcuffed, ready to be shipped to occupied France to fight a powerful enemy. The first episodes are a mix of comedy and action and that’s why I started disliking the movie from the beginning. I’m not sure there really was a need to play it like this. It set the tone wrong as, ultimately, this isn’t another Tropic Thunder and, in spite of the initial groundhog day feel, it would have worked better if it had been darker.

Our officer is shipped to France, in spite of his protests, and finds himself battling the enemy in heavy armour and gear. Next to him on the battle field is the war hero Angel of Verdun (Emily Blunt), a highly trained fighter. She’s killed while he shoots one of the aliens.

And then he wakes up handcuffed again and the story seems to start from scratch.

Since I like some military sci-fi, I think I might have liked this, if there hadn’t been any comedic acting at all. Was that Tom Cruise’s choice, I wonder? It think it’s too bad because when you subtract that you have an action-packed, edgy, dark sci-fi adventure with a great finale.

I liked that it used imagery and battles of former wars – Verdun – D-Day landing etc. That gave it an almost creepy, and certainly chilling element.

The Edge of Tomorrow isn’t bad, it’s just not consistent. The mood’s a huge mess, in my opinion. It should have been consistently dark. It’s still watchable but not Tom Cruise’s best performance. I’d even say it was the weakest I’ve ever seen. At least Emily Blunt’s surprisingly at home in this role. Nonetheless, if you like action-packed Sci-Fi, you might enjoy it.

The trailer is one of those that makes you expect a very different movie.

Northmen – A Viking Saga (2014)

Northmen

So, yes, the Swiss/German/South African co-production Northmen doesn’t fare too well on IMDb and similar places. And, after the first ten minutes, I almost stopped watching because the acting wasn’t good but once the story gets going you forget that easily. And, frankly, can you resist a movie that bears a resemblance to King Arthur? I can’t and considering that most similar movies are either way too gory, or try too hard, this one does a pretty good job. It’s action-driven but not gory. There’s a love story but it’s not in your face. And it has a lot of surprising moments. If, like me, you love to cheer when a small group of men manages to fight an army thanks to their resourcefulness, then you’ll enjoy this.

The story is summarized quickly. A group of Northmen who have been outcast by their people, land behind enemy lines. They want to cross enemy territory to get to another friendly group of Northmen who might accept them. As soon as they land, they are under attack. They manage to overpower a much stronger group of soldiers. When those soldiers flee, they leave a carriage behind in which the Northmen discover a young woman who is very obviously from a rich background. They hope that in taking her along, they’ll be able to ask for a ransom and safe passages. Unfortunately she’s the king’s daughter and the king doesn’t negotiate. He would rather see his daughter dead. Helped by a monk with special fighting skills, they flee across the land.

If you like movies in the vein of King Arthur or The Last of the Mohicans – minus the history -, you might really enjoy this. Just bear in mind that the acting during the first ten minutes isn’t very good, but you’ll soon forget about it because the story and the plot work well, the characters are interesting enough for an adventure film, and the imagery is stunning. Give it a try and let me know how you liked it. I think, for  B-movie it’s pretty good.

True Blood fans will be delighted to see Ryan Kwanten starring as the monk Conall.

The Imitation Game (2014)

The Imitation Game

More than one person I know felt that the Academy Award for best acting should have gone to Benedict Cumberbatch for his role as Alan Turing in The Imitation Game and not to Eddie Redmayne. But even without such praise I would have been keen on watching The Imitation Game as I think code breaking is such a fascinating topic, and, after having watched it, I’d like to visit Bletchley Park.

The Imitation Game is hard to review. Movies based on true stories are a bit like classic novels. Many people know the story and you can’t spoil it for them, but those who don’t might get a little upset if you are too explicit. On the other hand you can hardly say anything meaningful without spoiling it. Quite the dilemma.

The Imitation Game tells the story of Alan Turing, an eminent young mathematician, who was hired by Bletchley Park to help decoding the famous German Enigma machine, which was said to be unbreakable. Not only did it have an almost infinite possibility of codes but the machine was reprogrammed daily.

Turing soon understood that humans wouldn’t be able to decipher the workings of such an advanced machine. Only another machine could do it. In order to get carte blanche and the necessary founding for his project, he needed approval from high command and the assistance of his fellow code breakers. Unfortunately, Turing was a difficult man. In his youth he had a best friend but later he was never capable of having real relationships and friendships. I was wondering at times if he wasn’t autistic. Judging from the movie, he certainly had some form of OCD. In any case, he wasn’t capable of empathy and took everything people said so literally it must have been a true burden to communicate with him. Still, he was a genius and as soon as he had people’s trust he was capable of extraordinary things.

If Alan Turing had only been the man who broke Enigma, this would have been an exciting movie about a genius, but since the movie also focusses on his homosexuality, it was also extremely tragic.

I knew, of course, that homosexuality was illegal, but I tend to forget how dire the consequences were when someone was found out. I must admit I ignored that Alan Turing was gay, and, so, the end really got to me.

****************************Spoiler************************

It’s hard to believe that the man who helped save millions of lives was forced to take hormones to “cure” his homosexuality and finally killed himself in 1954. This might be one of the saddest things I’ve ever heard. Not that I would have found it any less tragic if someone who was not famous would have been forced to take such heavy medication. Sixty years don’t even seem all that long ago. It’s hard to imagine things like that were legal. But then again, so was lobotomy and electroshock therapy, and many other dreadful things.

***************************Spoiler End*********************

Cumberbacth is a great actor and in this movie, he’s surpassed himself. He’s very convincing and subtle. It’s a role in which many actors would have been tempted to overact, but he doesn’t. Too bad Eddie Redmayne was nominated this year as well. Any other year, Cumberbatch would have won.

I didn’t say anything about the pseudo-love story with Joan Clarke, played by Keira Knightley, although it’s an important role insofar as it shows that the society was just as hard on women as on gay men. They still were not considered capable of the same as men and not taken seriously. I wished they had chosen another actress. I thought she was rather dreadful in this film.

I really liked The Imitation Game. The cinematography is beautiful. The pictures are very crisp, very defined. The acting is great and the story is amazing and tragic. Don’t miss it.

 

Is Fury a War Movie?

Fury

Long live macho-martyrdom and let’s kill as many bad, bad Nazi’s while we can. Yikes. Fury is the kind of movie that gives the war movie genre a bad name. Bizarre is the word that came to my mind more than once while watching it. It was clear from the beginning that this isn’t an anti-war movie, but it took me until the end of the film to come to the conclusion that it’s not even a war movie. Just because someone pretends to tell us a WWII story doesn’t mean he really does. In my opinion, Fury is an action movie disguised as a war film.

Plus, it’s full of clichés, not very realistic and the plot is dragging in the middle section.

What’s it all about? I’m going to do something I never do I’ll give you the IMDb blurb here

April, 1945. As the Allies make their final push in the European Theatre, a battle-hardened Army sergeant named Wardaddy commands a Sherman tank and his five-man crew on a deadly mission behind enemy lines. Outnumbered, out-gunned, and with a rookie soldier thrust into their platoon, Wardaddy and his men face overwhelming odds in their heroic attempts to strike at the heart of Nazi Germany.

*******SPOILER*******

Did anyone else think of Platoon while watching this? We have a young, inexperienced soldier and an old, larger-than life hero who dies a rather spectacular death in the end.

What’s with the Nazi killing? Maybe the Allies shot a few German prisoners but I doubt they forced their young soldiers to shoot them to harden them.

They fall in love/lust awfully quickly in this film. While we’re not allowed to watch – we get to see a half-naked Brad Pitt aka Wardaddy.

It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a movie in which the Germans were depicted as entirely evil and stupid.

Shortly before the end, the young American soldier is hiding under a tank. A German soldier searches under that tank. He very obviously sees him but doesn’t shoot him. Or does he not see him? Both explanations are highly unrealistic.

*******SPOILER END*******

I’m really allergic to movies that try to glorify war or fetishize warfare. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t watch Fury. Just keep in mind – it’s not an anti-war, possibly not even a war movie and far from realistic. Those who love tanks and Brad Pitt might enjoy it a lot.

American Sniper (2014)

American-Sniper

Clint Eastwood’s latest movie American Sniper  is based on the true story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle who was called “the most lethal sniper in the U.S.”.

Every time I watch a movie based on a true story I find it difficult to write about because ultimately I have to write about two things: the movie as such and the story it’s based on. Very often I like the movie a great deal but I’m highly critical of the story. Like in this case. I admire Eastwood for the way he tells Chris Kyle’s story but I’m not sure I can admire someone who killed so many people, although I admire his skills.

The movie starts in Iraq. We get to witness two of Kyle’s most problematic kills. A boy and a woman. There is never a doubt— they are not collateral damage. Kyle takes them out on purpose. With good reason as they were about to blow up a tank. Nonetheless these two kills are problematic for him as we can easily deduce.

After these initial scenes, the movie switches back and we see a few scenes from Kyle’s childhood. How he was a great shot as a small boy already, taking out a deer. This seems to be a typical sniper movie feature. I can’t remember one in which we don’t see a small boy killing an animal, which already shows he’ll be a gifted sniper.

Kyle first works as a cowboy but it doesn’t work out for him and, being a patriot, he finally joins the Navy SEALs and becomes a sniper. One evening he meets his future wife Taya; shortly after their marriage, right after 9/11, he’s sent on his first tour to Iraq.

The movie then tells us chronologically all the important things that happened during the tours and the growing unease when he’s back home. Kyle is quickly turning into a legend. The most deadly sniper the US ever had and he’s also a wanted man. The Iraqis will pay a great deal of money to the person who can kill him.

Back home, Kyle tries to “return” but he fails. He never seems to leave the war zone. He keeps on hearing gunfire; he almost kills his own dog, thinking he’s attacking his kid; he’s withdrawn and distracted. His wife suffers but stands by him. In the movie we’re led to belive she has no idea her husband has taken so many lives. There’s even a scene in which she asks him if he’s ever killed someone.

The parts in Iraq are gripping. Especially since we have a “Enemy at the Gates”-situation. There’s an Iraqi sniper who is almost as good as Chris Kyle and the two try to take each other out. I’m not sure whether it’s based on a true story as well or whether this was added/embellished for dramatic purposes. In any case, it works because it gives the movie a plotline that is suspenseful.

As I said, I admire Eastwood for the way he told this story because it never felt manipulative. I didn’t think he was glorifying Chris Kyle or condemning him and whoever watches this will be able to make up his/her own mind.

Since I’m not American I wasn’t all that familiar with his story. I knew the name and that he wrote an autobiography called “American Sniper”. While watching the movie I had no idea how it would end, that’s why I’m not mentioning it here. If you don’t know yet, let me just tell you that it’s a pretty ironic and surprising ending.

One aspect that I found extremely interesting is what the film says about killing. Or rather – how we get to experience different ways of killing. If you shoot randomly in a battle and kill people, it’s clearly not the same as when you aim carefully and see them fall. A sniper’s kills are much more personal. I could image they weigh more heavily on the conscience than when you’re not exactly sure whether or not you killed someone. In a war like the war in Iraq there’s also the huge problem of civilians taking part. No matter how hardened a sniper is, it will be difficult for him to shoot a kid.

While I find that Chris Kyle is a highly problematic figure – his patriotism is more than a little annoying – and I really can’t glorify or applaud someone who shot so many people (160 confirmed kills, 250 probable kills) – I thought this was a terrific movie. Well done, thought-provoking and the acting is surprisingly good. I’m not exactly a Bradley Cooper fan so I was wondering whether he was a good choice, but I have to admit, he did a great job. And Sienna Miller works extremely well as his wife. I highly recommend the movie. 4.5/5

 

The Bridge – Die Brücke (1959) A German WWII Classic

Screen Shot 2015-01-04 at 17.04.27

I finally got a chance to watch Bernhard Wicki’s famous anti-war movie The Bridge – Die Brücke, in which a group of sixteen-year-old high school students fights to keep a bridge. Fighting for – or destroying – bridges is one of the great war movie tropes. Unsurprisingly so, because, like hills, they are strategic points of highest importance. There’s quite a large number of movies showing battles for hills or bridges, none of these however show such a futile attempt as the one depicted in The Bridge.

It’s the end of the war and the Americans are approaching from all sides. Germany, in a final, desperate attempt to win the war, is drafting even young boys. While many of the grown-ups do not believe in winning the war anymore, a group of high school students still hopes to get a chance to fight for their country. Many years of indoctrination have left their mark. They don’t listen to any of the grown-ups who want to talk them out of it.

The movie takes a long time, far over an hour, to introduce us to the characters. There’s the boy whose father, a major, died in battle and who is living alone with his mother on a huge estate. There’s the boy whose father is a Nazi and who flees when he feels the end of the war is approaching, which fills his son with shame, determining him to join up. Then there’s the boy who is in love with a girl but seeing all his friends join, he cannot stay behind. There are more characters but unfortunately – and this is the movie’s biggest weakness – they are not very distinct and even look so similar that even at the end I had no idea who was who.

The last half hour of the movie is the best part and quite powerful. Basically we see a series of mishaps and misunderstanding which lead to a great tragedy. Very often the defense of a hill or a bridge is the last straw and commanding officers order it in many a movie because they have no clue what else there’s left to be done. Not so here. The bridge is meant to be destroyed and the boys are only sent there to wait because nobody really knows what else to do with them. Filled with a feeling of importance and left alone by their superior officer, they think they have to fight to the last when the Americans turn up. This senseless battle costs the lives of many of the boys, of civilians, and American troops alike.

Admittedly my expectations were very high, so it’s maybe not surprising they were not met. The biggest problem, as I said before, was that I couldn’t really tell the boys apart and felt they remained clichéd and flat. When a movie takes more than an hour to introduce and characterize the protagonists that’s a major flaw. The last part was powerful but the acting was over the top, so that I found it not as tragic as it should have been. It seems that this story is based on a true story and as such I think it’s a story that was worth telling, only not this way.

Usually I’m not for remakes but in this case, I think it would be worth to do a remake. The story is tragic and symbolic. Better acting and better defined characters would have made this great. And color would certainly improve it. I like black and white but it must be treated differently. The images don’t have a lot of definition and depth, which may be another reasons why I couldn’t tell the guys apart.