Dunkirk review

 Number 617 on the 2024 list of the top 1000 films of all time is Christopher Nolan's war film.

Dunkirk tells the true-life story of the real evacuation of Dunkirk during World War II. The story is told from the three perspectives of land, sea and air. It features a large ensemble cast including Fionn Whitehead, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hardy and Harry Styles.

Christopher Nolan is well-known for his complicated sic convoluted films. From Memento to Interstellar, he loves a good plot twist. Yet what struck me so about Dunkirk was its apparent simplicity. I say "apparent" because Nolan doesn't do simple. However, Dunkirk showed a restraint and calculated hesitation that you don't often see in Nolan films. It helped that Dunkirk was only 100 minutes meaning Nolan had to direct everything as tightly as possible. He certainly did that.

In making Dunkirk, Nolan wanted to tell a WW2 story that focussed on survival and NOT heroism. This wasn't your Saving Private Ryan with grandiose tales about larger than life men. It was a stripped-back tale of men struggling to survive one of the biggest blunders of World War Two. This gave the film a startling amount of realism and authenticity. While there were plenty of emotionally heavy moments, they never once ventured into sentimentality. Cheesy speeches gave way to minimal dialogue.

And when I say stripped-back, I'm of course just talking narratively. Dunkirk had the usual terrific production value we would expect from a Nolan film. Everything from the special effects to the costumes and the props only added to the genuine feel of the film. Even the music was at a reasonable volume. Nolan's sound mixing is often off with Hans Zimmer score blasting over the dialogue. This wasn't the case here. The sound track pulsed along subtly in the background adding to the film without drawing attention to itself. It's no surprise this film won Best Sound Mixing and Editing Oscars.

Alas there were no acting Oscars, but it was an ensemble cast so this shouldn't be a surprise. All the cast were great in their different ways with all of them portraying everyday men pushed to the extreme. There was Mark Rylance and Barry Keoghan playing civillians helping the war effort any way they could, the always great Cillian Murphy as a shell-shocked soldier and Tom Hardy as a heroic RAF pilot. 

But Fionn Whitehead and Harry Styles were the surprise packages. Whitehead was a complete unknown actor while Harry Styles is, of course, best known as a singer - Dunkirk was both their debut film roles. Yet both of them were very good. We saw how the desperation of their situation pushed both characters to the absolute limits.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dunkirk. Nolan is a great director, but not when he is making complicated film with endless plot twists. His strength is taking real human moments and making them shine. That's where he succeeded with Dunkirk.

Where Eagles Dare review

 Number 604 on the top 1000 films of all time is the WW2 epic 'Where Eagles Dare.'

Major John Smith (Richard Burton) and Lieutenant Morris Schaffer (Clint Eastwood) are leading a crack-team of commandoes to rescue the captured American General George Carnaby (Robert Beatty) who is being held hostage in a remote Nazi castle. However, not all is what it seems.

Where Eagles Dare was based on the book of the same name written by Alistair Maclean who also wrote the film's screenplay. Maclean had his share of critics with some deriding his plot as melodrama and his characters as cardboard. Considering Maclean also wrote the screenplay, those same criticisms also existed in this film.

Yet they didn't really matter, as the film was thoroughly entertaining. It had more twisters and turns than your average high-octane rollercoaster, as well as an endless supply of pyrotechnics, explosions and poor stunt-men being thrown around like sacks of potatoes. You definitely can't fault the film on its production level. It looked great on-screen.

Not sure if I can say the same for John Smith or Morris Schaffer. I've always said that Eastwood is a one-note actor doing little less than providing a sarcastic dry wit. Burton was similarly unimaginative in his portrayal of John Smith. But perhaps that's more a criticism of the characters themselves rather than the characterisations. Neither of them were particularly complicated.

Maclean also received criticism for his vapid female characters. This definitely did not come through on the film though with characters like Mary Ellison (Mary Ure) and Heidi Schmidt (Ingrid Pitt) - follow British undercover agents - more than providing a match for their male counterparts. They were not sex objects nor sacrificial lambs but tough soldiers not afraid to get into the action.

Where Eagles Dare is certainly not without its critics - some are fair in their criticism, yet the film is so entertaining, the criticisms aren't that important.

Patton review

Number 287 on the top 1000 films of all time is Franklin J Schaffer's epic biopic 'Patton.'

Patton follows the life of famed American army general George Patton (George S. Scott) as he leads the US to victory during the Second World War.

Patton is three hours long. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Films need a very good reason to be three hours long. I'm not sure that Patton had that reason. If you are going to have a three-hour film, then it needs to follow a likeable character. By all accounts, Patton was a bit of a dick. I can only imagine this is how he was in real life - a big-mouthed hot-head who hated cowardice.

This might be an accurate portrayal of the character, but it didn't make me like him anymore. Patton's hotheadedness gets him into trouble more than once, most notably, when he physically assaults a PTSD-suffering soldier in full view of the rest of the hospital ward. Again, Schaffer might be staying true to reality, but it didn't make Patton anymore likeable. And considering the film was about him, this was a problem.

This isn't to discredit George C. Scott's work. He did win the Best Acting Oscar after all even if ultimately refused it. Despite playing an unlikeable character, he did his best to make him a fully-rounded three-dimensional character.

Like many of my film reviews, I think this review ultimately boils down to personal preference. Not being American, Patton's prestigious position in American military history means little to me. As such this film meant little to me.

Stalag 17 review

 Number 202 on the top 1000 films of all time is Billy Wilder's 1953 war-film Stalag-17.

J.J Sefton (William Holden) is just one of six hundred and thirty sergeants being held prisoner in a German WW2 POW camp. He is a cynical, jaded loner who stays apart from the rest of his men. When an escape attempt that leads to two of his fellow prisoners being shot dead, he is quickly suspected of being a collaborator.

Admittedly, I wasn't looking forward to watching this. I thought that because it's a war film, it would be depressing, hard-going and difficult to watch. However, I was surprised to find it had plenty of laughs and light-heartedness. A lot of that was down to William Holden who was great as J.J Sefton. Sefton is your standard wise-cracking smart-arse. He is also enterprising often bartering with his guards for luxuries, as well as improvising a distillery, organising mouse-races for gambling, as well as other activities to keep the other prisoners entertained. Holden played the role well, stopping Sefton from becoming overly-cynical.

Billy wilder has done such a wide array of films over the years from noir to rom-coms to screwball comedies that it was no surprise that Stalag-17 succeeded in the way it did. It had the same off-beat humour as Some Like it Hot but also the drama of Sunset Boulevard.  Originally adapted from a stage-play, Wilder was able to keep that same theatrical feel, while making it suitable for the screen. He made everything bigger and better.

If the film fell down anywhere, it would have been the supporting cast. Although some of them like the German guards were funny in their own right, mostly they all blended into one. I did have trouble distinguishing the different characters. I did get mixed up between Lieutenant James Dunbar (Don Taylor) and security officer Frank Price (Peter Graves.) Other than Sefton, the only other character I really remember is Sefton's loyal, if naive aide Cookie (Gil Stratton) who also narrates the film.

Overall, I did enjoy Stalag-17. It was an entertaining war film with a great turn by William Holden.

Zwartboek (Black Book) review

 Number 435 on the top 1000 films of all time is the Paul Verhoeven's Dutch WW2 film Zwartboek which translates as Black Book.

Rachel Stein (Carice Van Houten) is a famed Jewish singer during the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. When her hiding place is destroyed and her family are murdered by the SS, she joins the Dutch resistance. She is tasked by high-ranking resistance member Hans Akkermans (Thom Hoffman) to seduce the Gestapo leader Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch.) This was all based on a true story.

In war films, it is all too easy to say that these are the good characters and these are the bad characters. but the reality is never that black and white. And that was all part of Verhoeven's vision. He definitely succeeded. We'll take glamorous heroine Rachel Stein as an example. Victim of Nazi persecution, she makes an obvious hero. However, she then falls in love with the Nazi official that she's seducing. The Nazi official Muntze quickly realises she is a Jew, but he has also fallen in love with her. And he is much fairer than his brutal deputy Gunther Franken (Waldermar Kobus.) Realising the war is lost, Muntze secretly negotiates a ceasefire with the Dutch resistance.

*spoiler alert*

When the Netherlands is liberated at the end of the war, Muntze is executed for his crimes and Rachel is locked up as a supposed Nazi collaborator. Her fellow Dutch compatriots treat her and the other supposed collaborators deplorably: humiliating them by forcing them to strip naked. But then Akkermans, now an army colonel, breaks things up and declares them no better than the Nazis. And this scene is not difficult to imagine happening in real life. The Dutch are angry at their treatment and want to take out their anger on anything they can.

As the two leads, Van Houten and Koch gave a lot of nuance to character who ran the risk of being flatly good and bad.  But it was these fundamental flaws that made all these characters so human and relatable. even the burtal Franken is a keen singer/ballroom dancer. To have characters be simply good or simply bad would be far too two-dimensional and cliche.  And Hoffman shone as the true villain of the piece. 

*more spoilers*

Hans Akkerman, despite being a high-level member of the resistance, is actually a secret Nazi collaborator.  Rachel Stein and her family try escaping to safety by boarding a boat that will carry them down the river. They are discovered by the SS and Rachel is the only one who escapes with her life. It is later revealed that Hans set this up, so he could steal whatever money the refugees had. This is entirely believable as well. Everybody becomes desperate in war. And loyalties can change at the drop of the hat.

Van Herhoeven perfectly captured the brutality of war: from the SS gunning down escaping Jews to them torturing one of the captured resistance fighters. He certainly pulled no punches. He succeeded in creating a harrowing tale of human morality and I'll end this review on his assessment of Zwartboek: "in this movie everything has a shade of grey. There are no people who are completely good no people who are completely bad. It's like life. It's not very Hollywoodian."

Das Boot Review

Double Indemnity Review

So from to Germany to America back to Germany for number 70 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time.

Set in World War Two, Das Boot focuses on the crew of a German U-boat as they struggle to return home.

Like any good war film, Das Boot offers an objective account of war and trusts the audience to arrive at their own conclusions.  it doesn't romanticise or demonise any particular side, but rather allows the audience to decide for themselves.  Watching this as an Englishman, I would have seen Germany as the villains of World War 2.  However, I actually sympathised rather than disliked the German sailors.  Just like the English, they were only soldiers fighting for their country,

The fraternal bond that existed amongst the sailors seemed close to how it would have been like in real life.  The unnamed Captain and Chief Engineer, being the oldest men on board, are surrogate fathers for the unruly, but loyal group of young men.  Whilst this film has been criticised for being unrealistic, the shared fraternal relationship was one of the best parts about it, as it highlighted how dedicated these men are to each other.  Whilst one minute, they were mercilessly teasing each other with crude and off-colour jokes, the next they were springing into action ready to do everything to keep each other alive.

Das Boot also beautifully explores the different ways that war can affect men.  Whilst the sailors are initially raring to fight, their excitement gives way to terror.  This is best explored through the character of Lieutenant Werner, a staff officer sent from the Ministry of Propaganda to report on the war effort.  Initially, he is very dedicated to taking down every single detail, but his enthusiasm quickly gives way to the cynicism held by the captain and the other officers.  

In one of the film's more understated moments, Lieutenant Werner befriends a young German sailor who has left behind a French girlfriend.  When Werner appears to be going on shore, he promises to deliver the sailor's letters to his girlfriend.  This subtle moment demonstrates the devotion that fellow sailors held towards each other.

Johann, the chief mechanic, is also a powerful example of the crippling effect of war. After their U-Boat is hit by depth charges, Johann has a nervous breakdown and deserts his post.  The Captain almost has to shoot him, before the crew are able to calm him down.  To redeem himself, Johann works tirelessly to repair the damage that the depth charges caused.  He has let down his captain and works hard to make up for it.

Set predominantly in a German U-boat, Das Boot is claustrophobic.  The camerawork is cramped, conveying the tight living conditions and knocking up the tension.  The battle scenes are incredibly tense with the camera cross-cutting from sailors running from one end of the ship to the other.

  Everything about the U-Boat is cramped from the sleeping arrangements to where the sailors eat.  Even where the officers are all cramped around one tiny table.  Adding to the claustrophobic feel is the dim lighting.  Many of the film's battle sequences are dimly lit making them thrilling to watch.

Many different versions of this film have been released: a two and half hour theatrical cut, the three and hour director's cut which is what I watched, and the an almost five hour long uncut version.  I think this film is stretched over 210 minutes.  The plot of the film- a group of sailors encountering lots of obstacles trying to get home isn't the most detailed or complicated, but it does become repetitive and meandering around the hour and half mark.  The crew of the U-boat are attacked by one ship barely survive and then are attacked by another ship and so on. 

 I found it much more interesting learning about the sailors, rather than watching their journey.  That notwithstanding there are some brief respites.  In one of the film's most distressing, but gorgeously shot scenes, the crew of the U-boat encounter a convey ship that has been badly attacked.  It is on fire and is slowly sinking.  Under strict orders to not take prisoners, the captain orders for the survivors to be left to their fate.

I also really didn't like that apart from the bloodbath of an ending, no characters died.  Seriously, no characters died.  None of the major characters nor any background characters.  Firstly, I think this is unrealistic considering how badly the ship was damaged.  Secondly, I think that if some major characters had died, this would have allowed for some interesting character development.  We could have seen how each character deals with this type of guilt, which could then be used to create internal conflicts on the ship.  It also would have brought the horrors of the war hammering home.  That is until...

spoilers

The crew of the ship finally make it home at the end of the film.  Just as they are disembarking the ship, they are ambushed by enemy fighter planes leaving all of the main characters, except Lieutenant Werner dead.  This surprised me by leaving me outraged.  How could it be fair that the crew all die after everything they've been through to get home? But hell, when is war ever fair?

American Beauty Review