www.dani19.com
Please go to this site from now on. This blog will no longer be updated.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Hard Target (1993)
Hard Target was one of John Woo's earlier attempts in Hollywood, and generally is a good B-movie. It wasn't the type of big budget summer blockbusters he later made (such as M-I:2), and the whole film effuses a raw and less polished style.
The film stars Jean-Claude Van Damme, one of the less successful action stars of the late 80s - early 90s. He doesn't have much acting talent, judging by the few films I've seen, but he certainly can fight, and fight with real style, and that's what matters in a John Woo film.
The plot is mildly interesting, though perhaps unoriginal - a bunch of serious bad-asses are running a business which lets millionaires (or anybody willing to pay a few hundred thousand dollars) hunt down people in the literal sense. Things go wrong when Van Damme gets involved, investigating the death of one the victims whose daughter hires him. The bad guys of course decides to forcefully stop the investigation, which turns into another hunting game, with Van Damme as the target. But as the target suggests, Van Damme is too hard a target for them.
What's slightly more interesting, is the action. Woo uses Van Damme fairly well, showing off his kicks perhaps a few times too many, but that's perhaps the point anyway - stylish action films are always somewhat over-the-top. Which is why some of the more wacky scenes such as standing hands-free on a bike and shooting are especially enjoyable. Some of the showdown scenes, which were later reused in Face/Off, present some rare nostalgia value too.
A film like Hard Target is destined to enjoy a small cult following. It has that kind of a in-your-face style, unapologetic in making violence into great masculine entertainment. However, for other audiences who don't want just senseless action, this film has little viewing value.
6/10
The film stars Jean-Claude Van Damme, one of the less successful action stars of the late 80s - early 90s. He doesn't have much acting talent, judging by the few films I've seen, but he certainly can fight, and fight with real style, and that's what matters in a John Woo film.
The plot is mildly interesting, though perhaps unoriginal - a bunch of serious bad-asses are running a business which lets millionaires (or anybody willing to pay a few hundred thousand dollars) hunt down people in the literal sense. Things go wrong when Van Damme gets involved, investigating the death of one the victims whose daughter hires him. The bad guys of course decides to forcefully stop the investigation, which turns into another hunting game, with Van Damme as the target. But as the target suggests, Van Damme is too hard a target for them.
What's slightly more interesting, is the action. Woo uses Van Damme fairly well, showing off his kicks perhaps a few times too many, but that's perhaps the point anyway - stylish action films are always somewhat over-the-top. Which is why some of the more wacky scenes such as standing hands-free on a bike and shooting are especially enjoyable. Some of the showdown scenes, which were later reused in Face/Off, present some rare nostalgia value too.
A film like Hard Target is destined to enjoy a small cult following. It has that kind of a in-your-face style, unapologetic in making violence into great masculine entertainment. However, for other audiences who don't want just senseless action, this film has little viewing value.
6/10
Saturday, March 17, 2007
The Pursuit of Happyness
I went into the theater with absolutely zero knowledge what the film was about; I was simply accompanying a friend. Though I confess I did feel somewhat awkward walking into such a film with another guy while most of the audience were couples, the film more than compensated me for that slightly peculiar feeling.
The Pursuit of Happyness, starring the charismatic Will Smith, is essentially another example of the American Dream. Smith plays Chris Gardner, a salesman for a bone density scanner back in the good old early 80s. He's having tough luck pushing his product, which supposedly had slightly better effects than an X-ray but was far more expensive. Gardner can't come up with money for the bills, and one day is inspired by the people working at a stock brokerage. He thought they all looked so happy.
He applies for an internship at Dean Witter; meanwhile, his partner (Thandie Newton) leaves him, because she simply couldn't cope with the burden and stress. Gardner is left with his 5 year old son. He gets kicked out of his apartment because he's 3 month behind in rent.
He does get the internship opportunity (despite showing up for the interview dressed like "a garbage man"), but the 6 month internship offers no salary. He would have to figure out a way to outshine his fellow interns, take care of his son, and most importantly make sure they somehow could have a place to stay.
Of course, he eventually succeeds (which the ending credits duly show by showing off his later financial success), though the process was nothing short of dire situations. The film is unapologetic in its realism: we see them living in a motel (getting kicked out of that too), a homeless shelter, and even the men's room of the subway station.
Will Smith shows charm, maturity and depth in his role. His make-up doesn't show off his good looks and usual charm (he seems haggard and worn-out most of the time), but his character is still deeply likable, both out of his intensity to succeed, and his strong love for his son. He portrays the character's feelings clearly without overdoing it, and the film is basically his one-man show, which he carries and delivers fairly well.
Of course, his pursuit of "happyness", as the word is intentionally misspelt, could arguably be called the pursuit of money (which some have duly pointed out in cynicism), and even though he achieves financial success, it's arguable whether that would lead to real happiness. But nobody could deny that economic security is the basis for most people's happiness: let's face it, few people could be happy if they lived on the street, which is where Gardner is from.
This film certainly isn't anything special, but it tells a good story which effectively communicates. Some may deem it as cheesy material - which is a matter of personal opinion depending on how you view such dramas - but it could be very enjoyable to others.
7/10
The Pursuit of Happyness, starring the charismatic Will Smith, is essentially another example of the American Dream. Smith plays Chris Gardner, a salesman for a bone density scanner back in the good old early 80s. He's having tough luck pushing his product, which supposedly had slightly better effects than an X-ray but was far more expensive. Gardner can't come up with money for the bills, and one day is inspired by the people working at a stock brokerage. He thought they all looked so happy.
He applies for an internship at Dean Witter; meanwhile, his partner (Thandie Newton) leaves him, because she simply couldn't cope with the burden and stress. Gardner is left with his 5 year old son. He gets kicked out of his apartment because he's 3 month behind in rent.
He does get the internship opportunity (despite showing up for the interview dressed like "a garbage man"), but the 6 month internship offers no salary. He would have to figure out a way to outshine his fellow interns, take care of his son, and most importantly make sure they somehow could have a place to stay.
Of course, he eventually succeeds (which the ending credits duly show by showing off his later financial success), though the process was nothing short of dire situations. The film is unapologetic in its realism: we see them living in a motel (getting kicked out of that too), a homeless shelter, and even the men's room of the subway station.
Will Smith shows charm, maturity and depth in his role. His make-up doesn't show off his good looks and usual charm (he seems haggard and worn-out most of the time), but his character is still deeply likable, both out of his intensity to succeed, and his strong love for his son. He portrays the character's feelings clearly without overdoing it, and the film is basically his one-man show, which he carries and delivers fairly well.
Of course, his pursuit of "happyness", as the word is intentionally misspelt, could arguably be called the pursuit of money (which some have duly pointed out in cynicism), and even though he achieves financial success, it's arguable whether that would lead to real happiness. But nobody could deny that economic security is the basis for most people's happiness: let's face it, few people could be happy if they lived on the street, which is where Gardner is from.
This film certainly isn't anything special, but it tells a good story which effectively communicates. Some may deem it as cheesy material - which is a matter of personal opinion depending on how you view such dramas - but it could be very enjoyable to others.
7/10
Sunday, March 11, 2007
300 (2007)
300 is a visual feast and a new kind of epic film. Lord of the Rings may have started it all, but 300 is such film-making at its most visually glorifying best.
The plot is simple, a fictional adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, in which Spartan King Leonidas and his men faced a Persian army far superior in numbers. As the title suggests, Leonidas only had 300 men with him, but he was determined to fight to the last man to protect his nation. Thus we have one of the most famous last stands in history.
Much of the film's plot and its narrative are typical Hollywood film-making. What makes the film so lavishly enjoyable, though, is its rich cinematography and cgi. The film is color desaturated, and therefore conveys a moody tone of myth and fantasy. Many of the film's scenes can be taken out and pose for a Renaissance art on Greek myth. The rich lighting conveys the clear theme of legendary heroism.
And then there are the intense and bloody action sequences. The film is not the least bit shy when it comes to depicting the full spectrum of a gory battle, as we see plenty of limbs and decapitations, as well as plenty of blood splattered (artfully) all over the screen. The dark enemies they face - from ninja like warriors to giants to elephant beasts and the like, are all symbolic and vivid.
Clearly, you could say that the film is certainly not about building rich and deep characters. It strives purely to give us a full cinematic experience in epics. That being said, I was slightly disappointed that I was not emotionally stimulated enough - the visuals are there, but the storytelling certainly lacks a bit of the Peter Jackson magical touch. That's why I give it a 7 - but this is one film that any avid action lover should not miss.
7/10
The plot is simple, a fictional adaptation of the Battle of Thermopylae, in which Spartan King Leonidas and his men faced a Persian army far superior in numbers. As the title suggests, Leonidas only had 300 men with him, but he was determined to fight to the last man to protect his nation. Thus we have one of the most famous last stands in history.
Much of the film's plot and its narrative are typical Hollywood film-making. What makes the film so lavishly enjoyable, though, is its rich cinematography and cgi. The film is color desaturated, and therefore conveys a moody tone of myth and fantasy. Many of the film's scenes can be taken out and pose for a Renaissance art on Greek myth. The rich lighting conveys the clear theme of legendary heroism.
And then there are the intense and bloody action sequences. The film is not the least bit shy when it comes to depicting the full spectrum of a gory battle, as we see plenty of limbs and decapitations, as well as plenty of blood splattered (artfully) all over the screen. The dark enemies they face - from ninja like warriors to giants to elephant beasts and the like, are all symbolic and vivid.
Clearly, you could say that the film is certainly not about building rich and deep characters. It strives purely to give us a full cinematic experience in epics. That being said, I was slightly disappointed that I was not emotionally stimulated enough - the visuals are there, but the storytelling certainly lacks a bit of the Peter Jackson magical touch. That's why I give it a 7 - but this is one film that any avid action lover should not miss.
7/10
Sunday, February 25, 2007
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
I like to watch a black and white film now and then, because film-making was so different back then in the golden era, and also because the films that last to this day have stood the test of time. The Maltese Falcon, starring the great Humphrey Bogart, is one such great film, and often hailed as one of the definitive films of the Film Noir genre.
The Maltese Falcon is a great mystery thriller. Bogart is private detective Sam Spade, a smooth talking veteran of the streets. It is his profession to dig up the dirt of human society, and he can smell a lie a mile off. One morning, the femme fatale in question - Mary Astor as Brigid O'Shaughnessy - walks in and asks the detective and his partner to follow a man whom the woman claims is holding her sister. Spade soon finds out that O'Shaughnessy is lying, but at the cost of his partner's death. The man they follow also quickly ends up dead, and a lot of suspicion is cast onto Spade.
What begins from here is an intricate mystery that expands and develops so smoothly I was rather disappointed that it was all over so quickly. Indeed, the film is just as smooth as Bogart's character, who utilizes all his wit to play other characters against each other to his benefit. Sometimes he is too smart for his own good, as he ends up unconscious in one scene due to his foes joining together. But he soon picks himself up again, and is back on the trail - the trail, that is, which leads to the Maltese Falcon, a statuette of great value and the centerpiece of all the characters' attention.
There are no sophisticated stunts or long and thrilling action sequences. What The Maltese Falcon relies on, is solely a gripping plot and wonderful characters. The film successfully flushes out a handful of distinct characters, all of whom are instantly fascinating. At the center of it all is Bogart's Spade, who's smart and witty, but perhaps with a soft spot for the girl. Astor's O'Shaughnessy truly exemplifies the phrase femme fatale, which has been used all to often to describe girls that are anything but mysterious. To our delightful frustration, we never know when she's really telling the truth, or it's just another well-conceived lie. Then there's Joel Cairo, played by Peter Lorre, who is perhaps the film's most funny and interesting character, who makes an impression (and steals the show from Bogart) right from his first scene. Finally there's Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper Gutman, a 300 pound criminal mastermind, who'll stop at nothing to obtain the statuette. And of course there's also a whole bunch of other supporting characters, in smaller but still vivid roles.
To sum it up, The Maltese Falcon is a great film built upon a host of strong characters and a witty plot that never fails to amaze with every turn. Some 66 years after it was made, it still makes great entertainment. A true classic for all film lovers.
9/10
The Maltese Falcon is a great mystery thriller. Bogart is private detective Sam Spade, a smooth talking veteran of the streets. It is his profession to dig up the dirt of human society, and he can smell a lie a mile off. One morning, the femme fatale in question - Mary Astor as Brigid O'Shaughnessy - walks in and asks the detective and his partner to follow a man whom the woman claims is holding her sister. Spade soon finds out that O'Shaughnessy is lying, but at the cost of his partner's death. The man they follow also quickly ends up dead, and a lot of suspicion is cast onto Spade.
What begins from here is an intricate mystery that expands and develops so smoothly I was rather disappointed that it was all over so quickly. Indeed, the film is just as smooth as Bogart's character, who utilizes all his wit to play other characters against each other to his benefit. Sometimes he is too smart for his own good, as he ends up unconscious in one scene due to his foes joining together. But he soon picks himself up again, and is back on the trail - the trail, that is, which leads to the Maltese Falcon, a statuette of great value and the centerpiece of all the characters' attention.
There are no sophisticated stunts or long and thrilling action sequences. What The Maltese Falcon relies on, is solely a gripping plot and wonderful characters. The film successfully flushes out a handful of distinct characters, all of whom are instantly fascinating. At the center of it all is Bogart's Spade, who's smart and witty, but perhaps with a soft spot for the girl. Astor's O'Shaughnessy truly exemplifies the phrase femme fatale, which has been used all to often to describe girls that are anything but mysterious. To our delightful frustration, we never know when she's really telling the truth, or it's just another well-conceived lie. Then there's Joel Cairo, played by Peter Lorre, who is perhaps the film's most funny and interesting character, who makes an impression (and steals the show from Bogart) right from his first scene. Finally there's Sydney Greenstreet as Kasper Gutman, a 300 pound criminal mastermind, who'll stop at nothing to obtain the statuette. And of course there's also a whole bunch of other supporting characters, in smaller but still vivid roles.
To sum it up, The Maltese Falcon is a great film built upon a host of strong characters and a witty plot that never fails to amaze with every turn. Some 66 years after it was made, it still makes great entertainment. A true classic for all film lovers.
9/10
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
There are only two times when British super-spy James Bond fell in love: once, at the very start of his career as 007, as portrayed in the most recent Bond flick Casino Royale; the other, is in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, where Bond goes one step further and even gets married (although he also got married in You Only Live Twice, a somewhat arguable false marriage).
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
That's not the only distinction this film boasts. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is also the only film starring George Lazenby as the lead spy, and it's not surprising why. The film is deeply flawed, except during the last half hour where it partially redeemed itself through some very intense action scenes and a heartbreaking ending.
The first flaw is obviously Lazenby himself. He is not Connery, and I guess he knows that, but I find him caught between imitating Connery and building his own 007. It might have been better had he just stuck to his own understanding of the character, and not jump back and forth. For example, it would be hard to imagine Connery's Bond thoroughly enjoying a Playboy magazine while doing business; not that he isn't capable - he certainly is - but that's not his particular style. While it is arguable whether a Bond who openly acknowledges his taste in girls with little clothes on is fitting or not, it is at least a new version of the spy, and if Lazenby stuck to this style, it would at least be a complete effort. Instead, he goes about saying one-liners that he couldn't deliver, making us miss Connery all the more.
Then there's the flaw with the plot. For the better part of the first hour, the plot is quite intent on telling the love story between Bond and Tracy (Diana Rigg in a dignified performance). What Bond wants besides the girl though, is information on the whereabouts of Blofeld. So when he catches wind of Blofeld, the film ignores the girl completely for the next hour, and the love development is left unattended to. It is picked up later on, quite unexpectedly, with the girl appearing out of nowhere (no good explanation given) and rescuing Bond just when he's about to get his ass kicked. I'm not complaining that the plot doesn't make sense - they don't make sense in most Bond flicks - but the plot is thoroughly frustrating due to such above mentioned turns.
And then there was the music. Somehow the production forgot to include a theme song, and replaced in its place a theme music that's not exactly very good, which is further aggravated due to its excessive reuse throughout the film. I couldn't help wondering if the whole crew were uninterested in making this film work.
Then again, the film gradually sorts itself out this mess towards the end, as Bond tries to escape from Blofeld's hideout and a great chase gets underway. The action scenes certainly don't look as good as they must've seemed at the time, but the intensity of the sequences remain. And of course there's the aforementioned heartbreaking ending, telling us the lesson that Bond is lethal, not only to his foes, but also to his women. It is during this half hour that Dianna Rigg is especially impressive, and I couldn't help wondering what would have happened had the plot included her in the bulk of its middle act.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a unique Bond film. That doesn't mean it's good, but it's somewhat interesting, and it tells an important part of Bond's story - how he is the man he is. Sadly, it doesn't do so quite as well as it should have, which just reminds me all the more how good Casino Royale is.
5/10
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
Heroes are made, not born, and throughout human history, it has always been war - the apex of human conflict - that makes the most number of heroes. Flag of Our Fathers, a World War II drama about the legendary battle of Iwo Jima, is at its center a complex discussion of heroism.
The narrative is a structurally convoluted one, but it primarily follows two lines, jumping from one to another in a series of random flashbacks. The first line is revolved around a photograph that is now part of American history - the flag being planted atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The picture is an instant hit with the American public, and the war government decides to use it to raise war funds. In doing so, they pull out the 3 soldiers who were on that photo and still alive, and send them touring around the country promoting the war bonds. But the 3 soldiers share a guilty conscience, as they know some uncomfortable truths about the famous photo: (1), it wasn't a photo of the first flag that was planted, but instead the replacement flag; (2), the name list of the soldiers who were in that photo is erroneous. The 3 soldiers also understand what they are doing is important for the men in the front, though, and they dutifully play along with the lies, making themselves heroes to the mass public.
The second line of the narrative, is logically about the battle of Iwo Jima itself. We witness a beach landing that is in the proud tradition of Saving Private Ryan. The fighting is bloody and intense, and many young Americans were simply massacred on the beachhead. The film doesn't really show us how the battle progresses, how the Americans eventually take the island, which gives the violence portrayed a further sense of senselessness - why are these men dying there, what are they fighting for?
We eventually see the moment of the photograph, and the reality is in stark contrast with the propaganda. The process was simple, no difficulties involved, and the men were surprisingly ordered to take a swim and enjoy themselves afterwards.
As with any war film, there is a big cast, but the film basically focuses on building 3 characters - the 3 soldiers who returned to do the war bond tour. The 3 characters are quite distinct, and I won't go into a detailed narrative here, but their life stories (which is also told in a extended final act of the film) are quite insightful and interesting in and of themselves.
As I mentioned at the start of this, Flag of Our Fathers is a discussion of heroism. The 3 soldiers didn't see themselves as heroes at all, but it was useful and somewhat necessary for them to be made heroes to America. The real heroes, as they said time and time again, are those who died at Iwo Jima, who couldn't return to tell their tales. After the war, the 3 heroes of yesterday found themselves going back to ordinary lives, either living with their personal demons or nowhere as successful as they thought they would be (with all that publicity). They are quickly are quietly forgotten. Also conveniently forgotten are the families of the boys who never got their 15 minutes of fame, who died on that black-sanded beach in the middle of nowhere - the real heroes, it seems, are always nameless. And they never saw themselves as heroes - they just did whatever they thought was necessary, whether it was killing the enemy in grueling hand-combat, or standing by their buddies throughout inferno.
Flag of Our Fathers is not a perfect film. Director Clint Eastwood perhaps tries to tell too much, and as a result the film is stuffed with all sorts of messages. Towards the end, the film sometimes feels a bit too long, trying to tie up too many loose narratives. But these flaws are acceptable, and for the most part this is a gritty and engrossing film, and a proud addition to the many great World War II films of past.
8/10
The narrative is a structurally convoluted one, but it primarily follows two lines, jumping from one to another in a series of random flashbacks. The first line is revolved around a photograph that is now part of American history - the flag being planted atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. The picture is an instant hit with the American public, and the war government decides to use it to raise war funds. In doing so, they pull out the 3 soldiers who were on that photo and still alive, and send them touring around the country promoting the war bonds. But the 3 soldiers share a guilty conscience, as they know some uncomfortable truths about the famous photo: (1), it wasn't a photo of the first flag that was planted, but instead the replacement flag; (2), the name list of the soldiers who were in that photo is erroneous. The 3 soldiers also understand what they are doing is important for the men in the front, though, and they dutifully play along with the lies, making themselves heroes to the mass public.
The second line of the narrative, is logically about the battle of Iwo Jima itself. We witness a beach landing that is in the proud tradition of Saving Private Ryan. The fighting is bloody and intense, and many young Americans were simply massacred on the beachhead. The film doesn't really show us how the battle progresses, how the Americans eventually take the island, which gives the violence portrayed a further sense of senselessness - why are these men dying there, what are they fighting for?
We eventually see the moment of the photograph, and the reality is in stark contrast with the propaganda. The process was simple, no difficulties involved, and the men were surprisingly ordered to take a swim and enjoy themselves afterwards.
As with any war film, there is a big cast, but the film basically focuses on building 3 characters - the 3 soldiers who returned to do the war bond tour. The 3 characters are quite distinct, and I won't go into a detailed narrative here, but their life stories (which is also told in a extended final act of the film) are quite insightful and interesting in and of themselves.
As I mentioned at the start of this, Flag of Our Fathers is a discussion of heroism. The 3 soldiers didn't see themselves as heroes at all, but it was useful and somewhat necessary for them to be made heroes to America. The real heroes, as they said time and time again, are those who died at Iwo Jima, who couldn't return to tell their tales. After the war, the 3 heroes of yesterday found themselves going back to ordinary lives, either living with their personal demons or nowhere as successful as they thought they would be (with all that publicity). They are quickly are quietly forgotten. Also conveniently forgotten are the families of the boys who never got their 15 minutes of fame, who died on that black-sanded beach in the middle of nowhere - the real heroes, it seems, are always nameless. And they never saw themselves as heroes - they just did whatever they thought was necessary, whether it was killing the enemy in grueling hand-combat, or standing by their buddies throughout inferno.
Flag of Our Fathers is not a perfect film. Director Clint Eastwood perhaps tries to tell too much, and as a result the film is stuffed with all sorts of messages. Towards the end, the film sometimes feels a bit too long, trying to tie up too many loose narratives. But these flaws are acceptable, and for the most part this is a gritty and engrossing film, and a proud addition to the many great World War II films of past.
8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)