winterbadger: (film)
I just watched Age of Heroes, a WWII action film starring Sean Bean. On Netflix I rated it 3 out of 5, but I think that's a bit generous.

Sean Bean is the first indicator that a movie is likely to be dodgy. He's an action adventure hunk without a great deal of acting ability, and at this point (54), he's an aging hunk. He carries his age pretty well in this film, as he's not trying to look as if he's 30, But it's like seeing Bruce Willis's name in  an "coming soon" trailer: you can bet it's going to be a "check your brain at the door" popcorn fest.

And that's pretty much what Age of Heroes is. A serious attempt was made to give the costumes and props a period look and feel, and those help raise this a bit above the made-for-TV or direct-to-video realm. So does the cinematography; there's some quite good imagery, both panoramic sweeps and careful, detail-filled close-ups that are more than the standard action shots of a shoot-em-up movie. And the company sprang for location filming; quite a lot of the action really takes place in the story's setting, Norway (though in the hills of the southwest rather than the mountains of the interior where is supposedly takes place). And the training sequences look as if they might actually have been near the historic commando training grounds of the western Highlands.

The plot is straight out of a 1940s or 1950s military flick. A commando unit is to be inserted into the heart of Norway to raid a German radar installation, both to destroy the site and to seize as much of the German technology as possible, so as to reverse-engineer it and speed up British radar work. Many of the classic war-movie archetypes are present and accounted for: the tough and dedicated officer who tells his pregnant wife that he has to do "one more mission", the hard-bitten sergeant, the foreign liaison (in this case a Norwegian-American volunteer), the pretty girl, the misfit soldier who makes good, even the disturbingly clean-cut but sadistically evil German SS officer (of COURSE he is an SS officer). We start off with some backstory, show a bit of training to demonstrate that the boys are tough, get the Top Secret Briefing, move through the inevitable Something Unexpected that screws up delivery of our heroes to their mission, see them make their approach to the target, and then violence and explosions ensue. I won't spoil the ending for you, but suffice to say that the final shot is also one I've seen in many, many movies of this genre. So, it's hammering out all the tropes. But while on the surface it looks good, if brainless, there are some rather gaping flaws that shift this from a solid 3 to something just below it.

For one thing, let's start out with the mission. The commandos did make raids in Norway; in fact, several of their early raids went against targets in Norway. But the attack that this film is supposedly based on took place on the French coast. Why? Because that's where the radar emplacements were. The writers actually include a lot of detail about the German radars, and get most of it right (the name of the system, how it worked, how it contributed to defeating an early RAF attack on German navy bases). But for some reason, someone decided they needed to make the film in Norway, so the German air defense radars are in Norway. Not only that, but they are mysteriously being built in a valley in the middle of the Norwegian mountains (not even on the mountain tops!) where they would be completely useless. Then, to seize these radars and destroy them, a force of exactly eight men is sent in (the historical raid on German radars are Bruneval, France, featured 100 men). And they are sent in on a single, twin-engined aircraft. Of course, you say, because the target is in the middle of Norway--they could hardly be sent in by boat (as early commando raids, which took place against coastal targets, usually were). Except that they are slated to escape by rendezvousing with a submarine--within a day of the attack! So they could presumably have been sent in that way (using whatever seven-league boots are going to get them from the middle of the mountains to the coast). And since they are going to attack a radar primarily designed to detect air targets, sending them by airplane seems a poor choice. Add that when the commandos debate trying to reach Sweden and determine that it would take 2-3 days to walk there through the mountains, the geography involved becomes very...odd.

There's also a bit of confusion about the timing of this raid in the history of the commandos, too. The force already exists, clearly, as the major has been with the commandos for some time and has, at the beginning of the story, to retrieve one of his men who has gotten arrested by the military police and is in prison--so clearly the commandos are a force in being already. But, wait, we're told this is taking place shortly after Dunkirk (May 1940), and some of the motivational speeches during the Top Secret Briefing include the exhortation that "this raid will set the standard for all future raids". Really? The first commando actions took place in the summer of 1940, at about the same time Germany was capturing Norway; but the Germans at the radar site are clearly part of an occupying force that's been there for some time. (Oh, and the Wilhelmshaven Raid that was spoiled by German air search radar? Took place in December 1939.) For comparison, the Bruneval raid that the movie takes its inspiration from, took place in 1942, nearly two years after the evacuation of the British Army from Dunkirk.

I'll just bring up one other thing that bothered me quite a lot and that suggested that their military advisor/trainer (who got a lot of squad tactics right) was either asleep during the costuming conference or got overruled by a director with "vision". Because the commandos, in their approach march through German-occupied terrain, after already meeting and killing one enemy patrol, move across open snow fields. In daylight. WITH NO WINTER CAMO! A basic article of commando snow gear, from the first winter operation in Norway onwards, white coveralls were essential to avoid standing out like a sore thumb when moving across snow. That these fellows have been sent in on a carefully planned operation (where, despite "losing a lot of our gear when we landed", they all have their bergens) without snow camo is just silly. That they would try to move in the daytime without it in an area swept by enemy patrols (which all wear winter camo themselves) is crazy. Oh, and although they train in mountain climbing and carry ropes and other climbing gear with them, there's never any suggestion that the mission involves climbing anything. Bwuh?

So, yes, if this were a building project, a great deal of the story would consist of spackle, covering up holes and smoothing over things that aren't quite right. Again, just a fun story, right? Not supposed to be too serious. But it does rather make me wonder why someone would get the bits like Freya and the Wilhelmshaven raid right and then get so many other things wrong.
winterbadger: (french HYW army)
Tonight I'm watching Ironclad (a movie about the siege of Rochester Castle by King John in 1215), and even halfway through I've learned loads.

King John had a time machine that allowed him to recruit 11th century pagan Danish vikings as mercenaries (silly chroniclers who said he hired Christian Flemings from his own 13th century).

The city of Rochester (which in 1215 was over 1,300 years old) was completely invisible, as were its inhabitants, during this famous siege. Also invisible was the cathedral (first established in 630, then rebuilt in the 11th century), which stands hard by the castle.

I'm wondering how the Danes managed to conquer England back in the Dark Ages, as these time-travelling ones seem to have employed the same level of efficiency as Star Wars Imperial stormtroopers. How else to explain the way that, with 2,000 men, they only seem able to attack the one ten-yard portion of the outer walls that is being defended by the motley collection of two or three knights and a dozen peasants, instead of attacking all around the castle and overwhelming the defenders with sheer numbers.

The silly chroniclers have been at it again, BTW, as these twenty defenders are only a portion of the hundred or so knights and the several hundred footmen who those goofy scribes claim defended the castle originally. (Curiously, King John seems to know exactly how many of them there are, and who they are, before he approaches the castle--clearly, along with his time machine he has a couple of UAVs with good optics.) Perhaps the rest of the chroniclers' defenders are sheltering in the invisible city...

But the royal attackers shouldn't have to worry too much, as they have quite a few mangonels (clearly carried on lorries, since they begin hurling stones within an hour of the royal army's arrival). And what stones! King John has got a connection that has hooked him up with rocks that explode, not only hurling fragments all around (as ordinary rocks might) but also producing huge clouds of smoke and occasionally gouts of flame and fire.

ETA: Oh, noes! The defenders build their own mangonel out of scrap lumber, and they too have found napalm somewhere.

The defenders have a few tricks up their sleeves too. They have oil, which though it is being heated dozens of yards away from the walls where it is needed, can be quickly carried up in small leather buckets without cooling too much to be highly disconcerting when hurled from the parapet. Disconcerting only in that it resembles a highly liquid tar instead of oil--maybe it's some special ink-like oil?

I can understand why King John is so upset; among other things, despite his having historically spent £115 nearly ten years before on the castle's walls and ditches, it is apparently without a moat. Or so the fictional Knight Templar who organizes the defenses says, standing on the solid ground outside the gatehouse; the captain of the time-travelling Danish mercenaries insists that the castle is protected by water, but maybe he's just making excuses for his mens' abject failure to overwhelm a force that they outnumber by 100 to 1.

I must say, though, these are doughty warriors on both sides; instead of the normal 5 or 6 liters of blood, most of them seem to have at least 8 or 10, judging by how much comes squirting out when any of them are hit. I'm curious to know if "Jonathan English" is just a British pseudonym for "Quentin Tarantino". And they are so tough that most of them wear no armour--not even helmets in combat most of the time. And apart from the Danes (who of course carry the proper round shields of their time), only one or two of the original garrison carry shields. Of course, most of the defenders are peasants, not actual soldiers (which does make one wonder where they got all of their super weapons skills), so maybe the lacks of armour and shields is understandable.

And lest you think this film is only about the tougher side of life in the 1200s, we do have occasional glimpses of the constable's wife, a comely young woman who doesn't seem to be to her husband's taste. (He's played by Derek Jacobi, which may suggest why he'd rather drink with the boys in the great hall than make sweet, sweet love to his pretty young wife.) But she goes out of her way to tend to the wounded after the first attack, wearing a very fetching headdress of leather straps and little silver rosettes that she doubtless got at her local Renn Faire, instead of a more appropriate but dowdy wimple. But then, she may have torn up her wimple to make rags for washing wounds--she washes off the Templar's flesh wound very assiduously, while teasing him about the papal decree that makes it a sin for knights in holy orders to look at women or even speak to them (I can imagine how awkward that must have made things--if you couldn't look at women, you'd be always bumping into them, and then not being able to say "Oh, sorry!")

ETA: Oh, she has a corset, too, that she must also have bought at the Renn Faire. But she must have blown her clothes budget on it, as she apparently can't afford any decent linen underclothes--she has no shirt, and even her strangely figured overrobe has no sleeves (or even shoulders).

ETA: Those Templars had a lot of rules; they weren't allowed to kill their own horses? Wow. Though I'm still trying to figure out how the defenders could starve nearly to death in six weeks...

Films are so great. I don't know how I would learn anything if it weren't for films.

perfect!

Dec. 27th, 2010 12:00 am
winterbadger: (irn bru bus)
Nina's Heavenly Delights has it all: all kinds of romance, a high-stakes cooking competition, a Scottish setting, and a concluding Bollywood dance number. I think even [livejournal.com profile] redactrice will be satisfied by the drag queen complement. A great movie with (I'm not giving anything away here) a super happy ending!
winterbadger: (coffee cup)
I have somehow managed to make it this far without seeing a good many classic films, or films that at least some feel are classic. To humour some of my friends, I watched one this afternoon, which I won't bother remarking on, as I thought it was at best boring and rather tiresome.

But to please myself, the other I watched this evening was "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner". It would be easy to say that it's hard to imagine a time when race posed so difficult a social problem. If only the implication that race is now not a problem were true--of course, it's not; race remains a difficult and painful problem. We have made a little bit of progress in the past 43 years; couples like John and Jo are not in physical danger in most of the country (though there are still a few where they would be, and many where they would be unwelcome). And nowhere is it any longer true that, as Mr Prentice says, a dozen or more states where interracial marriage is actually illegal.

But it's a film about family dynamics as well as about race. And John's speech to his father, Mrs Prentice's to Mr Drayton, and Mr Dayton's at the end are powerful and moving and would be even in the absence of race.

Tracy. What a guy. Boys Town, Northwest Passage, Judgement at Nuremburg. And all the Hepburn/Tracy movies. Craggy, rough-hewn, grumbly--I wish I could grow up to be him. :-)

Poitier is amazing. I really need to watch some more of his films. I think the only other ones I've seen are "The Defiant Ones" and "To Sir, With Love".

And Katherine Hepburn, a woman I adore, already showing signs of the essential tremor that plagued her in her last years, does a truly star turn. The scene where she fires the manager of her gallery ("Don't speak, Hilary, just... {flips her wrist into an understated, dismissive point} go") is pure KH. I *love* her!

Speaking of her, it's strange to see her and Tracy so *old*. I'm so much more familiar with their earlier films. I think I may need to see On Golden Pond again; it says a lot (especially KH's amazing, Oscar-winning performance) about how to deal with courage with the changes and fears that growing old brings.

I shouldn't watch another film tonight, though. I need to get up early and finish my cleaning. I got some things done (MK will not be able to mock me about my box pile ;-), but there's still a good deal to do.

ETA: One of the things that surprised me about GWCD was the frankness of the language. Not the use of the word "negro", which today is one of those words that one is no longer supposed to think is acceptable to use, but which was perfectly common at the time. But several of the characters, especially Mr Drayton, say "hell" and "damn" and "screw" and refer to people as "bastards". Pretty strong stuff for the film industry of the 1960s.
winterbadger: (coffee cup)
I really enjoyed a movie I watched recently, a movie about Bengalis living in London and trying to puzzle out where "home" really was, and it made me realise how many great films I've seen about the South Asian experience in the UK. So I decided to sponsor a virtual film festival: I'm nominating my slate of great movies about the mixture of South Asian cultures and communities with those of the UK, *in* the UK, and the challenges that mixing presents. I'll try to provide a thoughtful commentary on each of the titles each day of the festival (if I have time). Commentors are welcome to suggest alternative films. I'm also working on the flip side, tentatively title "Claiming Tea for the Queen: Britain's Love Affair with India", which will focus on films dealing with the British experience in South Asia.

So, the festival week lineup:Read more... )
winterbadger: (astonishment)
Many people who know me know that I'm not generally a big fan of Michael Moore. Or, generally, of the Catholic Church. But this commentary on Moore's "Capitalism:A Love Story" make me want to watch it.

Profile

winterbadger: (Default)
winterbadger

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
34567 89
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 12th, 2025 07:57 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios