Im Westen nichts Neues (2022)

"Im Westen nichts Neues", incorrectly translated with the more positive sounding title "All Quiet on the Western Front", is an anti-war movie, based on the novel written by Erich Maria Remarque after his experience on the World War I frontline. In the review I wrote three years ago for "1917", set in the same context, I was saying it should be included on a mandatory to-watch list for some state leaders. I can't say about "Im Westen nichts Neues" that's in any way superior as cinematic experience, but I can say that it should probably be on the to-watch list for even more people.

The movie, or the novel, which I didn't read, but that's the source for this, is somehow particular by showing you the perspective of the "evil" soldier in the finally defeated German army. Shocking, or actually not really, we come to terms quickly with the idea that at the frontline level there's not much separation between good and evil. The perspective of the individual tormented by the phyisical and psychical pressure finally reaches a neutral stance concerning the conflict's reasons, or to approximately quote one of the lines - we're nothing but a pair of boots with a rifle, what do we know? This is probably one of the key moments of a movie that doesn't have basically other subject than showing us repeatedly that the outside vision on a war at some point becomes quite different from what the person within the line of fire feels, despite any "expert" opinions on conflict reasons from outside observers. Obviously, there might be exceptions to this, and in a cynical evaluation, probably the impact of WW1's hand-to-hand combat is not exactly equivalent with killing the enemy from a distance specific to modern warfare, but that doesn't change the reality that on a war front lots of people die for purposes set from a safe distance by much few people. The same reality, well expressed by the movie, says that any war ends with a negociation and any postponing of this does increase the body count, which number, again in a cynical logic, might have some sense (but not for the dead ones) if it would at least change something on the front. But to move back to the harsh reality and the final statistics displayed by the movie, the West frontline during the 4 years of WW1 barely moved but left within the trenches more than 3 millions of dead bodies. Probably a partial explanation for such absurdity is provided by some other sequence of linse: half century without a war; what's a soldier without a war? The problem is that these lines don't come from a soldier's mouth, but from a general longing for the glory that his father gained in three victorious battles.

The saying that a war doesn't have victors but only losers is a naive cliche, real though but only if we refer to masses. Unfortunately, there are winners in a war, at least during the conflict timeline, either gaining material profits or bolstering their public image, or simply knowing that if the conflict ends this will change their lives, and not for the better. If there wouldn't be any winners, as ephemeral they might be, we wouldn't have wars. It's true that their number is small, but they're typically highly influential. But let's leave the history and politics for experts to discuss, and let's move back to the movie. Although I don't have much left to say there :)

I didn't like "Im Westen nichts Neues". I doubts it's a movie meant to be liked. It's violent, repetitive, without a rich narrative, although the screenplay is quite good. The casting is ok. The cinematography is fine but inevitably you'll compare it with "1917", which is almost imposible to match on this. What's more interesting is the soundtrack here that shows some fine tension notes, but overall I can't qualify this as a remarcable movie. It's, however, a necessary movie. Despite the fact I'm typically against political correctness in cinema, this time I'll pass on blaming BAFTA for throwing all awards towards this, although I can't say I'd list this objectively as the best film of the year. I can risk blaming in advance the AMPAS = the Oscars, because I'm almost certain they'll pick a weaker title that checks all their criteria that don't have much in common with the cinema. Anyway, considering how relevant these awards got to be in the latest years, who cares anymore? Conclusion: watch the movie, enjoy the peace as long as you have it ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Les misérables (1995)

I don't remember writing any blog entry that could be labeled as "paying tributes", and I doubt the current one would fit something like this. But my subject for this week was not that good anyway, so I thought it might be a better call to shortly point out at least one movie starring Jean-Paul Belmondo, IMHO the most versatile actor France had in the last 100 years. And I think "Les miserables", the '95 version, is eloquent of this versatility. There are many years since I've last seen the movie, so I won't try any detailed summary because my memory won't help me. It's not a classic adaptation of the novel. The story is set during WW2, instead of the French Revolution. It's actually a parallel over time that probably could be extended more. So, even my last viewing of this is far from fresh, I think I've seen the movie like three times or so, enough to stick in my reference book as the best adaptation of Hugo's novel, although it's not an adaption of Hugo's novel. The credit for this is shared by both Belmondo in the lead role - a character built as a replica of Jean Valjean, as well as by Claude Lelouch as director and writer. And that's pretty much all I had to say.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (2016)

 

Again, I don't have the mood and neither the time for writing. But "fortunately" also no sleep. "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot", or briefly "WTF" in NATO phonetic alphabet in case it wasn't clear, is a sort of satire and the only movie fresh enough in my head to use as subject in today's posting.

We don't have a very well defined narrative here. The movie is based on a book of memoirs gathered by a female journalist, war correspondent in Kabul, Afghanistan. So, as the intro on the credits says, it's based on real facts. It starts as a light comedy where the main character is trying to leave the boring office life for a more adventurous position. Starting from this part, the development of the story might seem disturbingly derogatory at times, reflecting a lighter Western position over a real situation in a conflict area that comes packed with all sort of problems, from social issues to tragedies on the battlefield. So, a context that in practice doesn't offer much material for a comedy. Slowly, the movie migrates though, in a relatively predictable fashion towards a more dramatic nuance = it also adds an unlikely romance episode, a kidnapping that brings some real tension and a more serious approach to a case of bad injury on the front. So, as I was saying we end up with a sort of satire that somehow looks decent enough in the end.

I'm still not sleepy enough, but also still not in the mood for writing, so adding that half of the movie's watching value comes from Tina Fey's acting, I'll end this here.

Rating: 3 out of 5

The Railway Man (2013)

 

I'm not in the best writing mood, and as in the last few weeks I only have one option that I watched recently to make it even more complicated. "The Railway Man" is another adaptation of a true story. Eric Lomax, a veteran of WW2 seems to find his peace 30 years after, when he marries Patricia. It just seems, because the post-traumatic stress is still there. So, we find out about the horror that Lomax + all his regiment experienced, being sent to forced labor for the construction of the Burma-Thailand railway. That's the first part of the movie.

In the second half of the movie Lomax and also we find out that a former translator of the Kenpeitai (the secret Japanese police), member of the interrogation teams (and implicitly torture) is still alive and works as guide in the '80s in a war museum. In search for his peace, Lomax decides to pay him a visit, departing with revenge thoughts, but what he finds is apparently a guy transformed by his own trauma. The meeting, therefore, concludes with a reconciliation beneficial for both men. 

The whole story, with minor differences, is indeed real, Lomax also publishing a book about it. I'd risk saying that the book is better than the movie, although I didn't read it. About the movie... you shouldn't expect much unfortunately. The first part is ok, although it tends to get a bit melodramatic for a real situation. The transition to the second half, is however sudden, forced and the way it's staged loses even more of its credibility. That's pretty much all I have to say about it... If I'd have to draw an average between the two parts...

Rating: 3 out of 5

Jojo Rabbit (2019)

If a month ago, I wouldn't have thought that my next max rating will be for a war movie = "1917", the least I was expecting that immediately after to warmly recommend another war movie = "Jojo Rabbit". Or again, actually another anti-war movie, although the resemblance with "1917" stops here.

Johannes Betzler, aka Jojo Rabbit, is a kid, who close to the end of WW2 still strictly follows his beliefs taken directly from Mein Kampf, missing none of the meetings of the Hitler's youth movement. Moreover, his imaginary friend is the "mein fuhrer" himself, making the boy totally devoted to the Nazi cause, despite his mother's suggestions towards moderation. Rosie Betzler is actually doing more than that, sheltering a young fugitive jew girl. Discovering this, brings shock and horror to Jojo's life, who's facing now an existential dilemma: his antisemitic cause vs. throwing his mother into Gestapo's claws.

"Jojo Rabbit", as most of Taika Waititi's movies, is a comedy before being a "war/anti-war movie". But slowly it gets you into the drama world, up to the moment where it starts reminding you a bit of "La Vita e Bella". There are actually at least a couple scenes that are in deep contrast with the usual "playful" atmosphere present in the movie, and you'll be at risk of shedding a tear or two. The major difference is that the script doesn't fall into the tragic zone, and somehow manages to get out with a clear smile from these hard moments. Again I'm not in my best writing mood, so I might be subjective, but I really prefer this "happy" version. In the end I guess it's more ok as view over life, even if it might be less real ;)

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

1917 (2019)

I'm not sure, but I guess that last time I've been convinced to give a max rating to a movie in a blog entry was in 2016. Not that it would count much, but I was thinking at some point that I'm excessively selective. So, it was about time to get a confirmation that there still exists a category, unfortunately threatened by extinction, that separates itself from the rest. Or, to put it in a more optimistic tone, you can still find sometimes cinema that has in impact, in all its departments = subject, acting, cinematography, sound, which moves you a bit outside of the idea of pure entertainment. It's possible that part of the impression I got left from "1917" to be on the ground of exceeding my expectations, but it clearly gets into this narrow niche of great movies.

"1917" is a war movie, or better said an anti-war movie. That's one of the reasons why I didn't give it much credit, because I'm just not that fond of the genre. Another reason is hearing about a bland story, with no depth, as well as the characters development. Indeed, the subject is simple: two British soldiers in the trenches of WW1 get the mission to deliver a critical order to a detachment that reached beyond enemy lines. From here, however, to "lack of depth", there's a long path...

An image is worth 1000 words. Tehnically "1917" is exceptional. The idea of long shots and getting an effect of continuous scenes is not at its first use, the most representative being probably Emmanuel Lubezki as cinematographer ("Birdman", "Gravity", "Revenant"). What's Roger Deakins doing though in "1917" is like a level on top of everything we've seen by now. It's not just the continuous scene, is how the camera moves in this continuous scene. There are aspects that might get to seem a bit unrealistic due to this. And here we could get to a long talk with philosophical interpretations, but in brief, WW1 was a static and stupid war - unrealistically stupid. So, what we have first in the camera work part and supplemented by sound, only strengthens this idea. The movie is not that hard to watch regarding what we see on the screen compared for instance to "Hacksaw Ridge". Even so, it doesn't take long to get a feeling of: thank God we're not living such times, and God forbid to ever get there again. And that "lack of depth" actually gets into the ingredients package that contributes to this. What would you expect from a story spanning pretty much the screen time, where somewhere in a desperate situation of getting through with an order of which more than 1000 lives depend of? I think there's already too much depth for a character in this context. The script even finds time to integrate some front line stories here and there, the feelings on returning home, or the direct interaction with the enemy where the first impulse is the human one to help somebody in need. And we have more.

"1917" has what's missing in "Dunkirk", which is a story, and also has what's missing in "Hacksaw Ridge", which is technical excellence. Sam Mendes somehow managed to put together a complete movie, which breaths through every aspect the anti-war idea, and which probably could fit well on a mandatory watch list for some head of states. I've seen comparisons between "1917" and "Saving Private Ryan". Forgive me, but I don't remember much of "Saving Private Ryan". I will definitely remember "1917".

Rating: 5 out of 5

Divided We Fall (2000)

"Divided We Fall" was the Czech option for the foreign movie Oscar in 2001. Where it didn't get much chance against the other nominees, like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" or "Amores Perros". I've watched it now, main reason being that when I need to travel in some country where I don't know at all the language I try to see a movie made there, maybe there's some chance to catch a couple words. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Most probably the second here. Anyway, it did worth the time.

In brief, we have a family risking their life by sheltering a young jew, during the German occupation in WW2's Czechoslovakia. To detail a bit, David Wiener is the son of a local business owner, who gets deported to a concentration camp with all the family, David managing to escape somehow and to return home. Which home, however, is about to be given for accommodation to a German official. Therefore, finally David gets to hide in the storage room of a former employee, Josef, who decides together with his wife, Maria, to offer shelter. And like that, Josef, to guarantee more protection, finally accepts also an offer to work for the German army together with Horst, a friend and former co-worker, who now is a collaborating with the SS troops stationed in the area. All this story takes place in the middle of some other family issues = the failed tries of Josef and Marie to have a child + the also failed tries of Horst to hook-up with the wife of his best buddy. And somehow these problems get to complicate a lot also the situation of the hidden fugitive.

The action's baseline is not that original in the area of the WW2 movies ("Zookeper's Wife", "The Book Thief", etc.). The approach this film has, is, however, done with more comic effect than other cases, without disregarding the gravity of the context. I would rather say that the cheerful contrast actually amplifies the tragic side, although (spoiler) the end is not as sad as "La Vita e Bella". Actually, the final part somehow cuts off the permanent tension during the movie, and the way this happens :) we have some sort of "twists", maybe a bit hard to believe, but clearly deserving a bonus for imagination.. no spoilers, check the movie ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5

Ivan's Childhood (1962)

"Ivan's Childhood", or by original name "Ivanovo destvo", it's one of the first movies directed by Andrei Tarkovsky, and actually the first more visible internationally gaining several awards when it was released. I avoided it until recently, because the subject of a child caught on the Russian front during WW2 wasn't the most joyful topic, especially given that my mood lately is not the best. Well, finally I decided to watch it, mainly due to its decent length (which criteria, as I was saying in another recent entry, in lately Hollywood standards looks to count in paying for a movie making by inch of film, without caring too much what's on that inch). My surprise, which wasn't actually that big considering a movie by Tarkovsky, was that we don't have a linear story = there is drama, but the way it's presented relaxes somehow the harshness (or well, depends I guess by how it's perceived by every viewer...). Ivan is a kid of around 10 years old, becoming an orphan during the war time, and growing up too quickly being involved in reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines. There's not much to say about the action. If you're waiting for a classic development with a beginning, middle and end, you need to look somewhere else. What we have here is a movie built on composition: characters, cinematography, editing, the context, etc. It's not story driven. I can say it's unbelievable how this looks today considering the year - 1962 - when it was produced, in black and white, made by Mosfilm in the Soviet Union. Leaving aside maybe some overacting, which is often present in old movies, technically if you just look at how the contrast is used in the composing the frame, the effects at that time and the camera movement, there would probably be already a lot to talk about. But also pretty useless :) it's better just to see it...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Paths of Glory (1957) / Cross of Iron (1977)

There's already some time since I want to put "Paths of Glory" and "Cross of Iron" in a side-by-side entry, enough time to forget pretty much all I wanted to write. By chance, I've watched this year both movies, both of them being part of a similar anti-war niche. "Paths of Glory" is among the first movies of Kubrick, while "Cross of Iron" is an indie movie by Sam Peckinpah (probably the most underrated director of the 70s). Both movies are book adaptations and both have the same antagonist typology - a superior ranked officer, whose primary objective in a critical war situation is a "quest for glory" and (up to some point) also the same typology of the main character - the inferior ranked officer, sick of war, for who the glory equals zero.

In "Paths of Glory" we have on one side a French general during WW1 who, following a discreet suggestion coming from the army commandment, decides to sacrifice based on preliminary estimation more than half of the people under his command for conquering a hill, a strategic objective that will bring praise and a potential promotion. On the other side, we have a colonel who should carry the order till the end, but fails, the soldiers being unable to advance through enemy fire; consequence - he must choose 3 soldiers, one in each company, for bringing them in front of the martial court for cowardice. In "Cross of Iron" we have a captain of the German army, descending from an Prussian aristocratic family, who in the final days of WW2 asks for a transfer near the enemy lines because he cannot accept getting out of the war without obtaining an Iron Cross for bravery. On the opposite side we have a sergeant, commanding a group of soldiers, saviors of the company in difficult no-exit situations, who refuses to lie on witnessing his superior leading a heroic assault.

The closeness of the two movies is interesting, not necessarily from the war context perspective, but more for the general approach of life: the boss-employee relationship, the world in which each of them lives seen from above by one and closely within by the other, approaching impossible tasks, etc. The similarity has, however, a limit, the movies being split apart by their general feeling, and the character who struggling within the harsh reality takes different directions from some point onward. (Spoilers) One of the characters manifests a loyal insanity up to the point when the accumulated sickness reaches a limit, the other is also a sickened person but one who plans, trying all he can to solve the situation within its constraining bounds. In "Cross of Iron" the sergeant is offered with the opportunity to accuse his superior and he's not doing it. In "Paths of Glory" the colonel is refused on any attempt of defense. Which approach is the right one?... :) I'll just say that it's probably better to watch the movies in reverse chronological order ;) also because I find "Cross of Iron" much more harsh than "Paths of Glory".

Rating:
Paths of Glory - 3.5 out of 5
Cross of Iron - 3 out of 5

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

War movie? That's what the poster says. I'd say that looks deceive... At least figuratively speaking. Or, well, we could say "Hacksaw Ridge" is a war movie, if you can fight war with peace... And probably you, because the story's real.

I guess it's quite clear for who read a synopsis or saw the trailer what's the subject here. An US recruit, detached in Okinawa at the end of WW2, refuses to carry a weapon and enters the battle as medic. And in a night somehow makes a miracle happening saving more than 70 wounded from the enemy lines. What you can't see so clearly in the trailer are the details. Especially the background story. The soldier, Desmond Doss, enlists voluntarily in the army, during the war, being a "conscientious objector". More precisely the guy has an "allergy" to rifles. Not only that he's anti-killing, he effectively doesn't want to touch a weapon. Not even in training, not even to carry a pistol for self-defense. Nothing. Now, remember the time... We're in the US army, the '40s, infantry division. Guess what happens? Well, pretty much everything. Pressure, beatings, psychiatric exam, up to the martial court. Nothing to shatter the man's belief that he can go to war without a gun. And in the end he gets there...

Mel is back. And I don't care about politically correctness regarding the man's personal life and opinions, from my point of view (at least since Ridley Scott started to be too commercially appealing) Gibson is the best director in activity. You can see the long break since "Apocalypto", but can also see that he still knows what he's doing there. The movie is not perfect. There are maybe some exaggerated war scenes. There are some cliches, but not as many as I was expecting. But above all, he delivers a metaphor that I referred in the beginning, maybe not as intended and obvious, but it's there. Is the story of somebody nuts enough, to see with all the risk beyond the noise surrounding that there's a place for calm. Or smart enough to feel that in an action, maybe justified, but destructive by nature, fate must somehow give some winning chance to a complete opposite replica, which doesn't care who's friend or foe, but only about good without evil ... just for the sake of balance.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Eye in the Sky (2015)

I didn't check, but "Eye in the Sky" looks like based on a play written for theater ... despite taking place in 4 different locations simultaneously. It's a situation thriller - short development, confined medium, closed context, time limit. No, I'm not describing "Phone Booth" ... but if we take the overall look we're not that far. A unit surveying the terrorist activity in Kenya gets activated when there's a report on several wanted names planning to meet in a hous in the area. Among these a British woman and an American citizen apparently prepare a suicide bomb attack. This information is provided with help of latest tech = a remote controlled "bumblebee". That's squad 1 - team on location. Squad 2 controls an airborne drone - "the eye in the sky", via satellite, and is formed of two US based pilots. Team 3 is somewhere in UK in a military unit coordinating the operation and led by Hellen Mirren. Finally, the 4th group is the decision committee = a gathering of British government representatives watching the events and sending approvals (or not ...) via an army general for actions to be taken. Quite complicated setup, isn't it?

Well, the plan is simple - a Kenyan special forces squad waits for an order to proceed in capturing the target group, but until they get a confirmed id the group moves to a different house. In a hostile area, where the only solution seems to be a well-placed rocket ... but the rocket will bring collateral victims ... and among the victims "the eye in the sky" detects a child, a girl selling bread ... So, it's complicated again.

All the movie is a cat and mouse game in the above context. Lots of irony to the politic class for the incapacity of assuming responsibility. Lots of criticism to the army forces for possibly rushed decisions. Although the ending might seem clear, if you look at the action up to there I don't know if you can give a simple answer on "who is right" ... this seems to change a lot up to the end. And that's probably the most interesting part of the movie ...

Rating: 3 out of 5

In Darkness (2011) | Son of Saul (2015)

I finally got to see "Son of Saul" in a cinema filled with people probably brought there by the hype created around the best foreign movie Oscar award of this year. By chance, I've seen also "In Darkness" recently, other older nomination to best foreign movie, no award there. Let's see why I've put these two together ...

"In Darkness" is based on a real story. A sewer worker from Lwow, a Polish catholic, hides in the town's underground a group of jews during WW2, saving them from camp imprisonment. For a price. Initially. With minimum involvement in their sewer inhabitants life. Initially. The movie evolves gradually to an outcome that we can consider, let's say happy, when after more than a year in underground the survivors get to see the sunlight again.

"Son of Saul" is a fiction where a guy named Saul, inmate in Auschwitz charged with collecting bodies from gas chambers, decides some day that the corpse of a child deserves a proper burial instead the standard incineration. And also decides that the ritual for that is has priority over anything else. So he starts looking for a Rabi. The outcome is not happy (and I don't want to hear about artificially interpreted metaphors contradicting this conclusion).

The general story context in both movies is a delicate subject and it's not something to discuss on which is better than which. Considering the movie making on the other hand can be compared. "In Darkness" did not impress me with anything. "Son of Saul" did ... on the negative side. I've seen one of the worst camera work in a production on which you're supposed to have high expectations. I've heard praise on the editing. It's preposterous. The movie is really hard on the viewer's eyes. The camera is almost permanently close to the main character tracking him everywhere. In some shots you want to see more, but no ... no chance ... The framing is 4:3, so really no chance. With all the risk I can compare this with a 3rd person game in which you don't have a zoom-out option. Sometimes you get a change in the camera position, which makes things even worse. If it was from start to finish tracking the main characters at least we would've had something original, a continuous shot like in Lubezki's Birdman (well ... letting aside the horrible framing). I don't want to hear stuff like it brings us close to the character's feelings, etc ... Eye-tiring is eye-tiring. What's good in "Son of Saul" is the acting. Technically it's bad.

Bout movies are rough. Both movies bring the main character to a point where he sacrifices more than what can save just because he wants to save. The difference is the concrete, real situation in "In Darkness" where the will to save targets somebody alive, besides the concrete, imaginary situation in "Son of Saul" where who's to save is dead. And again, this time I'm not interested in what's beyond concrete .. you give me a real life documentary with all its misery, then leave the concrete there .. cheap metaphors meant to deepen the atrocity seen there are not appreciated. I prefer the one in "In Darkness" with finally getting out to the "light" from the sewer. Both movies shock. "Son of Saul" makes it more often. Sufficiently to become a new "Hotel Rwanda" for last year's Cannes jury, after the Romanian "4,3,2", and more recently, having not much competition in winning the Oscar. I can recently observe that a Cannes movie = fancy = must shock, otherwise the jury couldn't explain in its infinite wisdom the deepest meaning of the film. "Shock" simplifies all this, because it doesn't require explanation.

Rating:
"In Darkness" - 3 out of 5
"Son of Saul" - 2 out of 5

No Man's Land (2001)

Long break again ... "No Man's Land" is a Bosnian movie from 2001. European co-production to be more accurate. I've seen by chance recently. Also by chance I guess it fits as a pretty good entry for the current times ...

Location: a trench during the Serbian-Bosnian war in 1994. Participants: a Bosnian and a Serb who got on their own feet standing between enemy lines .. + another soldier on the ground (still alive). I won't say on which side he is to avoid spoiling all the intro. What I can spoil is that the two conclude at some point that shooting each other is not a way out still standing.

It's a movie where if you give too many details you remove part of its charm. Because, as any other movie with a limited count of actors in a closed scenery, the action doesn't have much chance to lag and story keeps changing the path it has. The movie is a tragicomedy, unfortunately ending in a bitter note ... despite the situations that remove some of the tension from time to time. There are many fine nuances, which you can observe (and probably more that I didn't). Starting with the year, not mentioned explicitly, but appearing through a reference to the Rwandan genocide, underlining the uselessness of the UN policy of non-intervening in both conflicts, up to the fact that the press feeds too often with death (just notice when cameras stop shooting) ... Many nuances, which unfortunately are still valid. And the same for the conclusion: wars are stupid.

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Monuments Men (2014)

I've had low expectations for "The Monuments Men" after I've seen a couple of not so favorable reviews. And I guess somewhere in the back of my mind I was expecting to like it exactly because I wasn't expecting too much. Unfortunately I have to confirm what others wrote. Bland.

It's a movie centered on a less known WW2 episode. The activity of an American-British-French squad of art experts, with a mission to steal back what the German army stole first, and in direct competition with the Russian threat of moving the art objects further into the East. The movie is a relatively chaotic depiction of the sequence of heroic actions taken to completion, more or less successfully, by "the monuments men" on the poster. I'm sorry for the light irony, but the way the story is presented asks for it. You don't have something clearly defined in front of your eyes. Sometimes is a real war drama, sometimes moves to a comic side, sometimes starts to look like a WW2 spy thriller, and you have also a thin romance thread to complete the mixture. Maybe all of these could work together, but I don't know .. not here. It's actually not a mix, all sides are quite separated from each other, and passing from one to another is done too often and too swift. It has its moments here & there but .. the final result doesn't impress in any way.

The story itself is interesting, and the movie has some documentary value (although it neither inspires much credibility on how accurate it is, but I didn't do a proper check so I can't tell). As a fiction though, for a WW2 behind enemy lines treasure hunt story, I would strongly recommend "Kelly's Heroes". Old but waaaaay better ;)

Rating: 3 out of 5 (at the bottom limit)

JSA (2000)

Since for some time I don't really manage to get to see something better than a certain level, I've told myself to have a look again into the East .. although even the last experience from the cinema there ("The Mission") wasn't really something to remember. I still can say that either I'm lacking the material or the choice inspiration (amplified by the rate of 1 movie/week) ... or I started being too demanding. Anyway, even if "JSA" is (for me at least) again at the limit, it's a higher limit than the last one ...

Let's start with a bit of history: JSA, or in more detail Joint Security Area, is a militarized perimeter of several square kilometers at the border between North and South Korea, established in 1953 when the truce was signed and used for negotiations, etc since then. A more "exotic" characteristic to say so, is that the respective area maintains the marked split line between North and South, which in server point is just a slab in the ground, along with the strict "do not cross" interdiction ensured by guards from both sides. For more details about the location topography I recommend a Google Search. About the current movie, the main part of the action takes place near a bridge (having the split line in the middle). One evening, both sides are put in alert due to an incident between the two guarding posts. The outcome: two deaths + one survivor heart in the shoulder in the North Korean premise and a South Korean shot in the foot who barely manages to cross the border line covered by the rain of bullets exchanged between squads summoned at the place by both sides. To solve the incident a team of two officers from NNSC (Neutral Nations Supervisory Comission) is formed, NNSC being an entity created along JSA and approved by both parties for arbitrating situations, and currently being formed from Swiss and Swedish personnel. The main investigator of the two officers is a woman of Korean descent from her father's side, born in Geneva. She receives the depositions from both sides with a silent suggestion to solve the situation fast and without complications even if the result of the inquiry won't offer any answer. The official version of the southern soldier is that he was kidnapped and he killed the two when escaping. The only survivor of the northern guarding post is that the southern enemy just came in randomly unloading his gun in everybody there. Making a reference to an Asian classic, both versions are presented in a flashback style a la "Rashomon", followed by the real version .. which of course I'll leave to be seen ...

... Not though without a (sort of ) major spoiler :P, since after all the situation becomes quite clear pretty fast, and the movie itself doesn't do too much to hide stuff from the ending. What we have here is pretty close to the story from "Joyeux Noel", or what happened during World War I at the 1914 Christmas time. No to take the spoiler too far, and risking to get a bit cryptic in the following I won't say what happened then, although is neither very hard to guess nor to find out exactly. The difference in "JSA" is that given the much smaller scale of the story, and the ending that you get at the beginning of the movie, the result is to put it in one word: tragic. Up to the point when from the moment (as said not very advanced) when everything becomes relatively clear about the story, and the movie gets a bit hard to watch. You know where it's going, and the slow way to advance to that point only amplifies the drama. What can I say is that "the end of story" is so well done that the drama is kept, but fortunately for the viewer's psychic :) it's not delivered as harsh as you might tend to expect up to that point. I guess I forgot to mention that "JSA" is among the first movies of Chan-wook Park, more known (and awarded at Cannes) for "Oldboy". And since it seems that an excellent directing compensates more an acting not so good here and there, than the reverse from last time ...

Rating: 4 out of 5 ( .. but still at the bottom limit :) although this time I'm more subjective = not really in the mood for heavy dramas at the moment )

Since again the trailers from that side of the world are a disaster (and you ask yourself how come the movies there are not that appealing), I had to find a sort of alternative - in the current case a clip apparently included in the extended DVD release .. anyway much closer to "the movie feeling":