First Light (2010 TV) A TV Movie Based on the Memoir of a Spitfire Pilot
Geoffrey Wellum was only 18 when he joined the 92 squadron of the RAF in May 1940. He was one of the youngest pilots. He flew over 50 missions during 18 months, all through the Battle of Britain and beyond. After a forced break of several months he flew again but finally had a nervous breakdown and stopped for good. A while back he published his memoirs First Light on which this TV movie is based.
First Light is a treat for everyone interested in Spitfires, their pilots and the Battle of Britain. In between scenes we see and hear Wellum talk about his experiences. I think that hardly any pilot flew over such a long period and this many missions as he did. The strain and stress of being a Spitfire pilot is really palpable.
When he arrived at the base no one thought he would make it as far more experienced pilots were shot down. The other pilots were a bit reluctant at first to accept him as he was so young. The RAF was in desperate need of pilots and couldn’t really be too choosy. Soon the other pilots realized that he was a good pilot and a fine man and they accepted him. During the day they flew their missions, sometimes even in the pouring rain, in the evenings they came together to sing, drink and dance with girls.
There are many moments typical for air combat movies. The moment when they fly back to the base and everyone is anxious to see if anyone is missing. The love stories, the drinking, the friendships. The older men who feel protective of the younger ones. The sadness when one of their friends dies.
Maybe First Light wouldn’t be so special as a movie if we didn’t know that it ‘s a true story. But the fact that it is a true story and the presence of Wellum himself make this worth watching.
Instead of a trailer I attached a mini-documentary. Hope you will like it.
Enemy at the Gates (2001) or The Duel of Two Snipers
It’s interesting how often people mention Enemy at the Gates as one of their favourite war movies, yet I do not see it included very often in more official Best of Lists. I wonder why and can only guess. Maybe because it is too esthetic? Hardly ever have ruins looked this good. Or is it because of the love story? I must admit, I had a problem with it. I don’t mind a love story, although it is mostly a bit tacky in a war movie, but I would have liked this one to be left out. I thought it spoilt an otherwise perfect movie. And I think another cast would have been better as well, apart from an excellent Ed Harris, I didn’t care for the actors. Despite all these reservations, I think it is an excellent movie. The central story is suspenseful and it is one of the most beautifully filmed war movies ever and certainly one of those I will re-watch. And don’t you just love movies about snipers?
Stalingrad 1942. The city is under siege. The German army hopes to win the war and to secure the oil fields near the Caspian Sea. The Russians are well aware if they lose Stalingrad, it is over. The losses are high, morale is low and a little bit of propaganda might do every one a lot of good. That’s why Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) thinks its high time to fabricate a hero and charges Danilov, an important oficer of the Communist Party, with this mission.
Enemy at the Gates is loosely based on the story of the famous Russian sniper Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law). Vassili has learned to shoot at an early age, and now, in his early twenties he is the best sniper in the Russian army. Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) decides to pick him, and turn him into the hero Khrushchev is looking for. Vassili gets newspaper coverage and publicity and soon his fame is known far beyond the Russian borders and especially the Germans are well aware what a dangerous enemy he is.
Amidst the rubble and the ruins we see two parallel stories unfold. The first story line, follows a love triangle. Through Danilov Vassili meets the Jewish woman Tania (Rachel Weisz). Both men are in love with her but as it seems Tania has only eyes for Vassili. This love triangle is frankly annoying and disrupts the movie. It isn’t even very plausible.
The second story line revolves around the competition between Major König (Ed Harris), a famous German sniper, and Vassili. König is sent to Stalingrad to take out Vassili. All the parts of this second story line are quite gripping. We see the men hunt each other, we see how they get to know each other, how they try to find out how the other will react, how and from where he will shoot, how they try to ambush each other.
Snipers are endlessly patient. They don’t just shoot wildly, they aim carefully, take their time, observe and shoot only when they are fairly sure of hitting their target. Enemy at the Gates perfectly captures this cat-like hunter quality of the sniper and that’s what makes this film so watchable despite its flaws.
The director Jean-Jacques Annaud is famous for his cinematography. He has made one of the visually most compelling movies The Bear or L’ours . Enemy at the Gates is equally stunning from a cinematographic perspective.
Under the Bombs aka Sous les Bombes (2007) A French/Lebanese Movie on the War in Lebanon
How many times was there a war between Israel and Lebanon? Let me tell you, many, many times. Some were longer, some were shorter. The war in 2006 lasted 33 days and cost, as always, the lives of many civilians. The Lebanese/French movie Under the Bombs has a close look at what a war like this does to civilians.
Under the Bombs tells the story of a young mother who was in Dubai while her son stayed in the South of Lebanon when the war broke out. At the beginning of the movie she arrives in Lebanon and tries to find a taxi that will drive her to the South. None of the taxi drivers is willing to take her there. It is much to risky. The Hezbollah is still bombing Israel and Israel fights back. Or the other way around. At this point in time it isn’t exactly clear who is doing the fighting. The movie doesn’t really tell us why this war broke out or who is the culprit, it really is only interested in the innocent victims.
One taxi driver who fancies the good-looking woman finally decides to take her South. His own family lives there and he thinks he may have a look and find out about them.
The moment they leave Beirut the devastation can be seen. The movie was filmed right after the war and feels like a documentary. Those houses have so obviously been bombed, the cities and villages look desolate.
The trip South is a nightmare. Many bridges have been damaged and they have a hard time to find the way. Whenever they arrive at a destination they encounter people in distress but neither her son nor her sister can be found. The people tell them what they have been through and mostly have news of her son and indicate where he could be found.
During their trip, the taxi driver and the mother start to talk. They are an unlikely couple, and would never have met under normal circumstances. He is a simple man who dreams of leaving Lebanon and living in Germany while she is the wife of a famous architect and has seen the whole world.
After a day or two they both start to reveal their fears and talk about the things that went wrong in their lives.
When they arrive in the South where the family used to live the only thing they find is a heap of rubble and confusing stories. It seems that her sister has died under the bombs but her son has been taken away by French journalists. Once more they chase after him.
This is a tragic, sad and very touching movie. The friendship between the mother and the taxi driver is quite moving. Both actors, Nada Abou Farhat and Georges Khabbaz are excellent. There are no easy answers in the movie, no taking sides, just the illustration of what misery the bombing of villages and cities brings to the inhabitants.
I can really recommend this.
I also included it in on my Children in War Movies List.
Upcoming Civil War Documentary on History.com
A couple of days ago I received an e-mail from History. com in which they asked me whether I would like to do a post on their upcoming Civil War documentary that will be aired on May 30th 2011.
As you can easily deduce, I was willing to do so as the program seems interesting and well done and I’m partial to Ridley Scott anyway, be it as producer or director. I will not have the opportunity to watch it as I’m not US-based but all of you who are, do not miss it.
Below is what has been written in the e-mail and should tell you all you need to know in advance.
At the bottom you can find a trailer. The trailer and the choice of music (I’m a HUGE Placebo fan and their cover of Kate Bush’s Running Up That Hill is a favourite) make me feel really sorry for not being able to see it.
Summary: Gettysburg is a 2-hour HISTORY special that kicks off a week of
History programming commemorating the 150’th anniversary of the Civil War.Executive produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, this special strips away the
romanticized veneer of the Civil War. It presents the pivotal battle of
Gettysburg in a new light: as a visceral, terrifying and deeply personal
experience, fought by men with everything on the line. Compelling CGI and
powerful action footage place viewers in the midst of the fighting,
delivering both an emotional cinematic experience and an information packed
look at the turning points, strategic decisions, technology and little known
facts surrounding the greatest engagement ever fought on American soil.The special begins in the high stakes summer of 1863, as the Confederate
Army of Northern Virginia crosses into Pennsylvania. Trailed by the
Union’s Army of the Potomac, Lee’s 75,000 strong army heads towards
Harrisburg, converging instead near a quiet farm town, Gettysburg. Known
then only as a crossroads where ten roads running in all directions converge
like a wagon wheel, this small town would become site of an epic battle
between North and South. For three days, each side fought there for their
vision of what America should be.In collaboration with highly esteemed Civil War historians, HISTORY combed
through hundreds of individual accounts of the battle to find the unique
voices of struggle, defeat and triumph that tell the larger story of a
bitterly conflicted nation.
More information can be found here History. com.
71- Into the Fire aka Pohwasogeuro (2010)
71-Into the Fire is based on the true story of 71 South Korean student soldiers who, in August 1950, fought back the North Korean 766 Commando Brigade. In an incredible act of bravery they held out for 11 hours. Thanks to their courage and commitment the allied forces were capable of holding a bridgehead at the Nakdong River.
This brief paragraph sums up the story pretty much but it will not tell you anything about the way this story is told.
Unlike most Western movies 71-Into the Fire doesn’t start with an introduction of the main characters. It doesn’t show our group of young men in a training or boot camp, nor are we slowly led into the action. No, this movie starts with intense combat scenes and only slows down after having shaken us for a good 15 minutes. In so far it has some similarities with Saving Private Ryan. But that is where the similarity stops. There is a lot of use of slow motion in this movie which I can’t remember having seen in Saving Private Ryan or other war movies that often.
The main character, the first of the students to which we are introduced, is Oh Jung-Bum. He is inexperienced and scared. When he sees how one of the superior officers is shot, he almost breaks down. He can’t even help him or fire a shot, his hands are shaking too much. Still he stays with the man until he dies and for this he is promoted immediately to captain of the newly formed student company.
The 71 young students, or rather 68 students and three young convicts, haven’t had any training before. Most of them have never shot one single bullet in their life. This is far from promising but as the graphic scenes have shown, there is need for desperate measures. The North Korean forces are advancing rapidly and if the Allies cannot defend the bridgehead on the Nakdong River, they will be overrun by the North Korean forces.
Oh Jung-Bum is far from being the leader type and he knows it. Unfortunately the others know it as well and he has a hard time to make them follow his orders. Only after he has proven himself worth and gained respect, will they listen to what he says.
When the North Korean army finally approaches, we get to see an ugly and desperate fight that doesn’t leave a lot of survivors. The boys really give everything and manage the sheer impossible and hold back a well-trained and well-equipped army.
It is a heartbreaking story and I liked some parts of it a lot but the last 15 minutes or so were totally over the top. There was too much dramatic dying for my taste and I found it quite propagandist.
Despite its flaws I would give it a 4/5 because it is really gritty and tells a story that isn’t known much and it is undoubtedly a must-see for people who like the genre. Additionally the filming is quite interesting. However, as said before, I have huge reservations as to the end.
Thanks again to Cine Asia for sending me a review copy of this movie.
Please also check out Novroz’ review of the movie. She was the winner of the DVD Giveaway.
Movies on the Crusades: A List
It was high time for another list. The Crusades are a fascinating theme and there is nothing to infuriate me more than to watch a bunch of fanatic Christians (or any other zealots for that matter but during the Crusades the Christians were disreputably active) causing mayhem.
Of the movies on the list I have only seen Kingdom of Heaven and Arn The Knight Templar. While I almost fell asleep during the first one, I really liked Arn as you can read in my review. I have a feeling that my list is far from complete, so feel free to add/comment should you know other movies.
- The Crusades, directed by Cecil B. DeMille (US 1935) starring Henry Wilcoxon, Loretta Young
- El Naser Salah el Dine or Sultan Saladin, directed by Youssef Chahine (Egypt 1963) starring Ahmed Mazhar
- Robin and Marian, directed by Richard Lester (US 1976) starring Sean Connery, Audrey Hepburn, Robert Shaw
- Hearts and Armour or I Paladini – storia d’armi e d’amori, directed by Giacomo Battiato (IT/ US 1983) starring Ronn Moss, Tanya Roberts
- The Crusades directed by Alan Ereira and David Wallace (GB 1995, TV), starring Terry Jones, Anthony Smee, Steve Purbrick
- Kingdom of Heaven, directed by Ridley Scott, (US/ SP/ UK/ GE 2005) starring Orlando Bloom, Eva Green, Jeremy Irons, Michael Sheen, Liam Neeson
- Arn: The Knight Templar or Arn – Tempelriddaren, directed by Peter Flinth (GB/ SWE/ DK/NOR/ FIN/ GE 2007) starring Joakim Nätterqvist, Sofia Helin, Vincent Perez, Bibi Andersson (see my review)
- Arn: The Kingdom at Road’s End (Arn – Riket vid vägens slut, directed by Peter Flinth (GB/ SWE/ DK/NOR/ FIN/ GE 2008) starring Joakim Nätterqvist, Bibi Andersson, Callum Mitchell, Sofia Helin
As you may have noticed there are two Arn’s on the list. The reason for this is that there is a longer and a shorter version available but the longer one seems to be in Swedish only.
Harry Brown (2009) Michael Caine Starring as WWII Vet
If Gran Torino had been good it would have been Harry Brown. This is one hell of a gritty movie. A pretty unvarnished look at today’s Britain. If you are in a somewhat no-future, modern-life-is-pointless-and-ugly mood, better stay away from Harry Brown as it will certainly not cheer you up. If you like movies like Let the Right One In (The Swedish film!!!), then you might like it although there are no vampires in this movie, only very ugly and depraved humans.
Harry Brown (Michael Cane) is a lonely man. He spends his time visiting his wife at the hospital or playing chess with his only friend Leonard. When his wife dies there is only Leonard left. The two men live in the same depressing housing estate, somewhere on the outskirts of a big British city. Local gangs are roaming the neighbourhood day and night and some of the places and pedestrian walkways are far from safe. Violence and drug trafficking go on, people who pass are molested and harmed. The kids from the gangs are a bunch of real scum, the lowest of the low. No education, no future, only using and abusing.
Harry and Leonard regularly meet in a bar nearby where they play chess. Leonard has been the gangs’ target for a while. They hustle him, threaten him, shove dog shit into his letter box. The old man is terrified and cannot take it any longer. One afternoon he tells his friend that he is now armed. He is carrying an old bayonet and, if necessary, will defend himself.
Not long after this conversation two detectives (Emily Mortimer and Charlie Creed-Miles) come to see Harry Brown to tell him, that his friend has been killed. Beaten up and stabbed to death. Four young blokes are arrested, one more horrible than the other, some in and out of prison and coming from families in which the father, uncle or some other male relative is constantly in prison. The police questioning shows them from their ugliest side. They verbally abuse the female detective, swear and cheer because they know there is no evidence. Despite their obvious violent tendencies, the police have to let them go.
And that’s when Harry Brown takes a decision. He will avenge his friend. After the first gang members and drug dealers are found dead, the police now shifts from looking for the murderers to trying to catch a vigilante.
Up to now it may seem as if it wasn’t justified to include Harry Brown in this blog but the fact that Harry Brown is an ex-Marine and has served in WWII is important and gets even more important from the moment he decides to take justice into his own hands.
This isn’t a glossed over movie with a tacky ending, this is a tale that might happen, that shows an ugly reality that is far from overdrawn. It also takes a close look at the frailty and loneliness old age can bring.
Harry Brown is one of those old-school soldiers who never spoke about what happened in the war, who possibly tried to avoid thinking of it. The loss of his wife and friend and the brutality of the murder triggers something and liberates him.
Funny enough, this is as well a movie of vengeance as a movie of closure. It’s not pretty, it’s not nice but it’s highly watchable and it shows an absolutely excellent Michael Caine.
Goodnight Sweetheart (1993- 1999) A British WWII Time Travel Comedy Series
One thing is for sure, the British comedy series Goodnight Sweetheart is quite different. I watched the first few episodes now and thought it was quite funny and certainly not known by too many.
Gary Sparrow, a young married man, lives in a little house, somewhere in London, with his wife. Their marriage is a bit shaken as she is on a steep career path and reproaches Gary his lack of ambition. He does try though, but gets something wrong all the time. Either he isn’t dressed appropriately for his job interview or his lack of stamina keeps him from moving up.
He and his new friend Ron spend a lot of time drinking beer and moaning about their wives.
Gary works as a TV technician and one day, looking for an address in London’s East End, he lands in an alley called the Duckett’s Passage. In a bar he asks for directions when he realizes people are dressed in clothes of the 40s. At first he thinks he is in a theme pub but soon he realizes that he really is in war-torn London in the 40s.
He falls in love with the barmaid and for some 58 episodes we will be able to travel with him back and forth between 90s and 40s London and watch him lead a double-life with two wives.
It is quite amusing and the period pieces are well done. A lot of the fun stems from Gary’s mentioning things that will happen much later or sing songs that haven’t been written yet, pretending they are his. But it’s equally funny to see him forget, that he is really in the 40s and how shocked he is when there’s an air raid.
I think it’s a fun twist on WWII, amusing and entertaining alike and infused with some serious 40s nostalgia.
I attached one scene and a nostalgic fan video.
Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino (2008) Another Grim Korean Vet or Why I Think Gran Torino is Dishonest
To a certain extent my title does already give away what I thought of Gran Torino, only it is toned down. I was actually thinking more than once while watching “What a load of crap!”. Sorry, people, if there is anyone reading this who liked it, no offence.
Gran Torino tells the story of an old grumpy Korean vet (no, this isn’t a cliché, of course not), Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) who has recently become a widower. He lives in a neighbourhood that has been invaded (his point of view) by…? – Ha! I’m aiming at 100% percent politically correct wording here and will therefore translate what Swiss official papers would use as a wording which is “People with a migratory background”. OK, once more with feeling. His neighbourhood is invaded by people with a migratory background or – less politically correct - ”spooks” and “gooks”, as our vet calls them. Especially unsavoury to him is the fact that the house next to him is occupied (his point of view) by gooks.
At the funeral and the reception that follows, it becomes clear that Walt Kowalski doesn’t get along with his family or children. The relationships are extremely tense and full of mutual animosity and mistrust. Walt is one of those tight-lipped men who answers with a grunt rather than a full sentence. He is suspicious and full of hatred for almost every one around him. And he loves his beer.
The family who moved in next door consists of the grandmother, the mother, a daughter and a teenage boy. The boy loves to do gardening and hangs out with his family or can be seen reading a book. This greatly displeases his cousin who belongs to a local street gang.
This gang tries to clutch the boy and wants him to join the gang. They are sexist and macho. Without really wanting to Kowalski helps the boy. The cousin however will not let go easily and the boy and his sister are in real danger. The boy’s behaviour seriously tarnishes his cousin’s street cred. This must be punished.
The neighbourhood they are living in is dangerous, especially for a girl who might get raped any minute. Some time later Kowalski helps the girl against a bunch of “spooks”. The girl and our vet get to know each other and when he calls her “gook”, she corrects him and tells him that she isn’t Vietnamese but of Hmong origin. The Hmong are mountain people, located between China, Vietnam, Laos and Thailand. During the war in Vietnam they were on the side of the US and were later abused, mistreated and executed by the Vietnamese. That’s why so many fled to the US, as the girl tells Kowalski.
And this is where the movie lost me for good. It drifts into some tacky redemption parable that I found all the more dishonest because of this Hmong detail. Not that I don’t think they deserve a movie, they certainly are a tragic people but to choose to focus on Hmong rather than on other immigrants – sorry, I meant people with a migratory background – is such a dishonest thing to do. It is as if Eastwood could only choose and have Kowalski accept them because they were on the side of the US. Kowalski is and stays a racist all through the movie.
The message is dubious, the movie is tacky and clichéd , the ending is corny…
Skip it!
Here is the link to the Hmong Net for those interested.
Der Baader Meinhof Komplex aka The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008)
The Baader Meinhof Complex is another movie on the border between war and terrorism. It takes a close look at Germany’s Red Army Faction (RAF) or Rote Armee Fraktion, one of the earliest terrorist groups that made terrorism their profession. They were responsible for robbings, killings, kidnappings in the late 60s and early 70s. What the movie doesn’t show is the fact that there were different waves. The Baader Meinhof group was the first wave of the RAF. Their initial aim was never to kill people but once that started and got out of hands, more radical groups followed, like the one led by Brigitte Mohnhaupt (portrayed by Nadja Uhl) also called Deutscher Herbst (German Autumn).
Not everything is as it should be in Germany in the 1970s. The children of the Nazi generation are afraid that nothing has changed in Germany. Many of the old National Socialist party got away and are in prominent positions in the government. A group around the enigmatic figures of Andreas Baader (Moritz Bleibtreu), Ulrike Meinhof (Martina Gedeck) and Gudrun Ensslin (Martina Wokalek) are fighting a violent war against what they perceive as the new face of fascism: American imperialism supported by the German establishment.
At first they bomb empty buildings, but get more and more violent in the process. One of their two main enemies are the Axel Springer Verlag and the American bases in Germany. They try to fight the war in Vietnam and bomb an American base which costs the lives of soldiers.
The ideas behind their doings were far from wrong. They wanted to build a new society where there was no room for fascism and totalitarianism. Despite the violence, the support in the German population was huge and the whole nation followed how they were hunted down and captured.
Once the heads were arrested they were isolated and held under inhumane conditions which they fought. But even inside of prison, they still organized terrorist acts and their collective suicide must be seen as a last attempt to right the wrong.
The Baader Meinhof group is highly interesting. This was the birth of terrorism. Nothing like this has been seen before. They went to training camps in Jordan and fought together with the Palestinians against Israel that was considered to be an enemy like the US.
These were not mindless people, they were students and intellectuals, Ulrike Meinhof was a well-known journalist.
Although I cannot approve of their methods, there were too many killings and kidnappings, I can’t help thinking that they changed the fate of Germany for the good. The German society after WWII was still highly infected by Nazism. Many Nazis got away and played important roles in Germany. The Baader-Meinhof did denounce and unmask this. Without them, who knows what Germany would look like today?
The cast of this movie is excellent. The hunted are well chose and so are the hunters. The head of the police force is played by Bruno Ganz, Heino Ferch stars as his assistant.
The heads of the first wave all died. Meinhof, Ensslin, Baader and Raspe committed suicide in prison. It was rumoured that it was murder but nothing could ever be proven.
The second wave, among them Brigitte Mohnhaupt, left prison a while back (2007), after 25 years of incarceration.
ANZACS Part II The Somme (1985)
ANZACS part two takes us to the battle fields in France where the lads we met in the first part will take part in the battle of the Somme. Before they start to fight in the trenches they undergo a bit of training and are also shown the way the Germans fight.
There are still humourous episodes when old-world hierarchy meets with Australian insubordination but this clash of attitudes is also very unfortunate. General Haig, as this episode shows, was less than thrilled by the Australian’s lack of obedience and thought it best to send them off to one of the bloodiest battle fields. Surprisingly they are doing very well. Where most other companies achieve nothing they manage to capture some terrain and there are also more and more losses among the Germans. The British high command is surprised by this can-do attitude and the ability to fight demoralization however they still refuse to recognize their valor.
At the end of the episode the heavy fighting has taken its toll anyway. The men return extremely weary and it’s hard to imagine that the ordeal only just begun.
In episode I an Australian journalist had an important role in covering up the senselessness of the battle at Gallipoli. We see the same journalist once more. He is the Australian prime-ministers’ spokesman and has to find out whether the Australians are not just sacrificed. He points out that they haven’t really won a lot of terrain so far. He is informed that it isn’t only about winning terrain but about wearing out the Germans.
The trench scenes are very convincing. These are trenches that crumble, they have been under such heavy fire all the time, that they are merely shallow dug outs. Usually the trenches we see in WWI movies are very high. The fact that they had to be reconstructed constantly and did at times hardly give any shelter isn’t shown very often.
Like in part two, the story moves between the battlefields and the home front which adds to the authenticity.
I enjoyed part II even more than part I (see review here).
I attached chapter two from Episode 2 (2/10)
