Was Corporal Upham a Coward? (Saving Private Ryan)

 As you can probably guess one of my favourite movies ever is 1998's Saving Private Ryan (see my article from November 2016). As one of the greatest war films ever made it touches upon a range of themes and topics for discussion, from the ideals of duty and patriotism to the realities of war's violence and moral ambiguity. One thing that jumps out at me whenever I'm with someone watching this movie for the first time is their reaction to Corporal Timothy Upham seizing up during the movie's climatic battle in the town of Ramelle and failing to intervene in a hand-to-hand fight which results in his comrade Private Stanley Mellish getting killed by a German soldier's knife. Almost invariably the new viewer criticizes Upham for not climbing those stairs and lifting a finger to rescue Mellish. In a mixture of frustration and disbelief they dismiss Upham as a coward, but personally I've always thought that this was an unfair criticism of this character. Here's why.

We first meet staff assistant Upham as he's being recruited into Captain Miller's squad to serve as their interpreter. Upon hearing that their destination has “a lot of Germans,” the corporal explains that he has no combat experience; in fact he hasn't fired even fired a weapon since his basic training, implying that he never underwent infantry training. Herein lies Upham's biggest weakness: his lack of training makes him ill-prepared for the stress of combat. People often question why boot camp drill instructors are so mean and verbally abusive towards their recruits. Some believe that they're trying to make the recruits into unthinking automatons that will obey any order given. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real reason for this is that the drill instructors are conditioning their recruits to think under pressure, preparing them for the high-stress situations they will have to work under some day. In the movie Jarhead, the Marine drill instructor chides Private Swofford: “You can't think while I'm giving you a few love taps?! How the f--- are you going to fire your rifle when grenades are going off in your face?!” This is the purpose behind live-fire exercises. The more risky and realistic the training, the better-prepared the recruit will be – technically, tactically, and mentally – to handle the danger, chaos, and sheer terror of combat. Without this psychological preparation, the average person's reaction to high-stressed situations will simply be determined by their fight-or-flight instinct.

In addition, proper training and conditioning is what prepares a soldier to kill. To the average person – especially a mid-20^th century American – the act of killing somebody is abhorrent and does not come naturally. It is something most people need to be trained into doing. This is summed up in a famous quote by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket: “Your rifle is only a tool. It is the hard heart that kills. If your killer instincts are not clean and strong you will hesitate at the moment of truth; you will not kill.” Sometimes even infantry training didn't do the trick. There have been multiple post-war studies that concluded that a large percentage of US troops in the Second World War (as well as in Korea and Vietnam) did not shoot to kill; in fact, some never even fired their weapon in battle at all!

In movies it's common for there to be a “new guy” type of character, one who's uninitiated and not used to the environment he/she is now in. It's a tried-and-true method to give the audience someone to identify with, a means through which the viewer can become acquainted with the setting of the story. Timothy Upham is this type of character. Like much of the film's audience he has no combat experience and he is horrified at the events going on around him. Just like with his lack of infantry training, Upham's lack of experience makes it harder for him to handle the stress of battle. War changes you psychologically.

This is demonstrated at around Saving Private Ryan's halfway point in which Miller's squad assaults a lone German machine gun pit, capturing it and taking one prisoner at the cost of their medic, Wade. The other squad members expect to execute the prisoner, nicknamed “Steamboat Willie.” They know they can't bring prisoners with them and they want to kill the German in revenge for Wade but Upham protests, claiming that such a thing would be morally wrong and “against the rules.” It's clear that he still clings to the value of human life and decency. A heated argument ensues, ending with the squad releasing the prisoner even though it endangers their mission. Later on near the film's conclusion Steamboat Willie has rejoined his comrades and takes part in the Battle of Ramelle, delivering a fatal shot to Capt. Miller. Upham – after his breakdown and Mellish's death – captures Willie, recognizes him, and then shoots him dead. By now Upham has learned that soldiers in war must be ruthless when faced with tough decisions. He now knows what it means to be a soldier in combat. He is a changed man.

Unfortunately the change came too late to save Private Mellish because Corporal Upham couldn't work up the nerve to intervene in the knife fight. It is true that is was a failure on Upham's part, but to only focus on this one scene would be unfair when you consider all the other things he did during this battle. Throughout the battle at Ramelle Upham supplies ammunition to the machine gunners as they shift position. To do so this untrained staff clerk has to run through German machine gun fire as well as dodge tank fire while buildings are being blown up all around him. He witnesses his comrades – men braver and more experienced than him – get shot apart and literally blown to pieces. He wasn't expecting to go through any of this stuff, and yet he maintains his composure. But he can only take so much; it's only when he hears the sounds of a savage hand-to-hand fight going on upstairs that he finally cracks under the stress and is unable to go on any further.

It may be easy to curse out this character for not having the fortitude to intervene in a fight to save a life, but how many of us have been in the same situation? Corporal Upham, a man who wasn't prepared nor expecting to go through combat, just wanted to live. Is that any different from your ordinary movie-goer?

Was Timothy Upham wrong for not saving Stanley Mellish? Yes he was, but I implore you: don't be too quick to judge.

Movie Review -- 1917

  Now this is how you start off a new year! Historical films about wars have always intrigued me and I'm pleased to see people are increasingly interested in the First World War. But a First World War movie directed by Sam Mendes, the same guy who made Jarhead and Skyfall? Sign me up, Sarge! Let's bust some caps at those Huns!

  1917 takes place on the Western Front and focuses on two British soldiers, Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) who are tasked with relaying a message across occupied territory to a cutoff unit: that they're walking into a German trap. And so the two men are in a race against time to warn the oblivious battalion before it – along with Blake's brother – is wiped out. It's a movie reminiscent of both Saving Private Ryan – due to a comparable plot and up-close action – and '71 with its survival-against-all-odds motif. (Dude, if I wrote an article comparing those two movies it would be called '17 vs. '71. Neat, huh?) The story takes you places with some really tense moments, grim moments, and sad moments. There are a lot things that happen in 1917 but the pacing is excellent and things never seem as if they're being rushed along. I found 1917 to be a film that feels longer than it really is, but I mean that in a good way: by the time it winds down you'll have the impression that you've truly been on an adventure.

  This is given a huge boost by the film's immersive cinematography by the great Roger Deacons. I can't think of another movie that deserves the all-in-one-shot treatment more than 1917. If you've ever wanted to see WWI trench warfare up close then you need to see this film. A lot of the time it seems as if you're there yourself; the camera stays at ground level and never strays too far from the main characters. Along the way you'll end up seeing these scarred, barb wire-strewn battlefields just as our lads did more than one hundred years ago, complete with their filthy conditions and gruesome wreckage as rendered by the meticulous and highly detailed set design. It all lends an air of authenticity to the whole picture.

  This authenticity is upheld by the talented cast of all-British actors, with lesser-known ones portraying Blake and Schofield. The big-name cameos are fleeting and don't distract from the story you're watching. Tom Arnold does a fine job with the film's score, giving scenes a gloomy yet restless feel to them.

  It's funny: whenever I see a truly great film my review of it ends up being a short one. But what else can one say about a technical masterpiece of cinema like 1917? It plays on a level of immersive realism that I've scarcely seen before and is the best war movie since 2017's Dunkirk. In fact it might just be a bit better. Well done, Mr. Mendes.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Midway

Hey, guys. I’m in the middle of moving again so I’m afraid I’m going to have to keep this review short. Thankfully I did find a moment to escape to the movie theatre to see Midway, an American war movie detailing the events surrounding the pivotal Battle of Midway in 1942. Is it as stunning a victory as the real-life event or does it land as a dud? Let’s take a look.

The film begins with the attack on Pearl Harbour. A leadership shuffle results in Admiral Chester Nimitz commanding the Pacific Fleet. He charges his intelligence officer Edwin Layton with keeping tabs on the Japanese plans and avoiding another disaster. Together they keep the Pacific Fleet busy in the following months as the navy’s pilots, led by the daring Lt. Richard Best, wreak havok on the high seas. And that’s only some of what goes on in this flick; there’s a lot of plot stuffed into this movie and some of it is ultimately inconsequential to the big picture. This includes the Doolittle Raid, the submarine Nautilus, and some film director on Midway Island.

Similarly there’s also a ton of characters in Midway and there’s only a few truly interesting ones to latch onto, chief among them Nimitz, Layton, and Admiral Yamamoto. Richard Best, played by Ed Skrein, is OK but his accent sure sounds weird.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about Midway is the obvious CG-heavy effects. The Pearl Harbour attack scene looks downright terrible, like watching a cartoon. Moreover, pretty much every scene taking place at sea is green screened, lending an air of fakery to the picture and makes the battle scenes a little less exciting. It’s a shame that director Roland Emmerich – the guy who made 1996’s Independence Day – has only gotten lazier and lazier with his visual effects.

All in all there’s two movies that come to mind when I think of Midway. There’s similar subject matter to be found in Pearl Harbor (2001), which while way sappier at least has some exciting action and characters that stood out more. I’m also reminded of 1962’s The Longest Day in the overabundance of plot/characters and the whole old-fashioned war movie feel. But at least The Longest Day had some impressive real-world visuals.

So what does Midway have? Pretty much the only neat things I’ll remember are the dogfights, the submarine parts, and any scene showing the Japanese perspective. But these are all things that have been done better in other movies. In short Midway is, in a word, average.

Grade:

A Brief Look at Combat Memoirs, Part 2

Welcome back to part 2 of my rundown of combat memoirs that I've happened to have read.

Lima-6: A Marine Company Commander in Vietnam by R. D. Camp. Pacifica Military History, 1989.

Unfortunately I won't be able to too into depth about this book because I don't have it anymore and I last read it about six years ago. Lima-6 is written by R. D. Camp who commanded a company of US Marines in Vietnam from June 1967 to January 1968. I do remember how the book detailed Camp's efforts to gain the trust of his men; as such a lot of attention is given to the camaraderie between the troops. One moment that stands out for me is when Camp first experiences the death of one of his men. Apart from that I really don't remember much. Lima-6 isn't a bad book but still if you want one about leadership in combat then you're probably better off looking elsewhere.

Mad Minutes and Vietnam Months: A Soldier's Memoir by Micheal Clodfelter. Pinnacle Books, 1988.

I believe that this was one of the first soldier's memoirs I ever read and to this day I still think it's one of the best. Mad Minutes and Vietnam Months – in reference to how life in war is made up of long stretches of boredom broken up by brief moments of action and terror – recalls Michael Clodfelter's experience in the US army in Vietnam from July 1965 to December 1966. He originally enlisted as an artilleryman but volunteered to extend his tour of duty with the infantry, hungry for some action in the service of Uncle Sam. But the jungle's dangers, the hostile populace, and the overall course of the war gradually made him reconsider his prior gung-ho attitude. His time in the army abruptly came to an end after a wound from a punji stake booby trap. Clodfelter's account shows how much patriotism and machismo played a role in how GIs behaved during war. It's also interesting getting to know the troopers he served with. His squadmates run the gamut from cowards to klutzes, from patriots to bloodthirsty killers, from career soldiers to kids, and not all of them get along very well. If you're looking for one book about one soldier's experiences in Vietnam then check out Mad Minutes. It's got everything; it's like Platoon (1986), just without the GIs murdering eachother.

Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949 by Siegfried Knappe. Dell Publishing, 1992.

In Soldat Siegried Knappe covers his entire military career in the German army from 1936 straight to the conclusion of the Second World War. He served as an artillery officer across various fronts including Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the USSR, and Italy and as Germany's forces retreated back into the Reich Knappe found himself stationed in Berlin's Fuhrerbunker until the bitter end. Captured by the Soviet army, he then spent five years in captivity before returning home and then moving to the USA (as far away from communism as possible). Since the book covers a significant chunk of Knappe's young adulthood you get some nice insight into what it was like to live, grow up, and start a family in Nazi Germany. You also get a good sense of what army life was like back then. While not an especially political individual, Knappe initially had great pride in the achievements his country made in such a short timespan but as the war ground on he grew disillusioned with the inefficient and corrupt Nazi regime. There are a couple drawbacks though; as this is an officer's memoir there isn't all that much combat to be found in these pages. Also the book seems to have a bit of emotional detachment, almost like reading a textbook at times. But still, for those looking for some insight to the German experience of WWII, Soldat has you covered.

Helmet for My Pillow: From Parris Island to the Pacific by Robert Leckie. Random House, 1957.

Well, this was disappointing. If you've seen by Band of Brothers vs. The Pacific article (from January 2016) then you can probably tell that I'm a big fan of The Pacific which was partially based on this memoir by Robert Leckie, one of the miniseries' main characters. Regrettably, the miniseries makes Leckie's wartime experience look more tense and exciting than this book gets across. While there are a are a couple decent battle scenes – as well as a few tense patrols – most of this book revolves around Leckie and his pals getting drunk, stealing things, and getting in trouble. Helmet for My Pillow is written in a very illustrative, almost poetic, kind of way that contrasts with the brutish life and harsh living conditions. On the other hand, it sometimes comes off as pretentious and boring. At least the book is a short one. I'd recommend this one to die-hard Pacific fans only.

With the Old Breed At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene Sledge. Ballantine Books, 1981.

However, you don't have to be a fan of The Pacific in order to appreciate the other memoir that it's based on. I'd say that Eugene Sledge's With the Old Breed is probably the best war book I've ever read. Its level of detail is staggering and it unapologetically paints a brutal picture of what combat was like in the Pacific Islands in the Second World War. From notes he kept in his pocket Bible, Sledge lets readers in on the dirty and unsanitary conditions US Marines had to contend with. He also describes the intense hatred both sides had for eachother, which facilitated a loss of compassion and subsequent acts of brutality. In contrast to Helmet for My Pillow, With the Old Breed is written in a very plain, straightforward language that gets across the indignities and fears of the war's participants. As you read it yourself you'll instantly admire the people described within – most of them, anyways – and sympathize with their challenges and heartbreaks. With the Old Breed is a powerful read that I highly recommend to anyone interested in this genre of literature.

Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford. Pocket Books, 2003.

Here's a book of which I've just finished my second read through. Jarhead is scout sniper Anthony Swofford's graphic, no-holds-barred account of his time in the US Marines during the boring and interminable Operation Desert Shield and then finally – but all too briefly – Operation Desert Storm. The central focus of the book concerns the Marines' expectations of a war like their forefathers and their subsequent near-existential disappointment at seeing very little actual combat. This disappointment is compounded by the military culture the author grew up in and that fact that the Marine Corps trained him to be a ruthless killer. But the ground war against Iraq ended so swiftly and uneventfully that all the waiting, isolation, and training seems to have gone to waste. Pretty much the only Iraqis Swofford ever saw were either dead or in the process of surrendering; in fact Swofford didn't ever get to fire his rifle in combat. The author seems aware of how boring such a campaign might be to a reader so to compensate Swofford's book randomly jumps around talking about other stuff from his life both before and after the war, most of which involve drunkenness, fighting, and sex (or any combination thereof). While there are some tense scenes with some haunting imagery – the burning oil wells and the bombed-out columns of retreating vehicles come to mind – Jarhead is a very up-and-down read for me. It's worth reading once but I don't think I need to read it again.

A Brief Look at Combat Memoirs, Part 1

Remembrance Day is coming up soon (or Veterans Day for my American readers). As such let's turn our gaze to the past once again, shall we? Ever since I was a kid I read a lot of history books. (I lead an exciting life. What can I say?) One subgenre of history that I read a lot of is combat memoirs. Also known as war memoirs or soldier memoirs, combat memoirs are books about war written by the guys who fought it. I find that the first-hand experiences of individuals – ordinary, everyday people – provides the most engrossing viewpoint of historical events. In short, they're enthralling and hard to put down. So for this article I thought it might be fun to look at some combat memoirs that I've read over the years, sorted alphabetically by author.

Shoot to Kill: From 2 Para to the SAS by Michael Asher. Cassel Military Paperbacks, 1990.

Shoot to Kill details the young adulthood of Michael Asher throughout the 1970's. As a high school graduate he enlisted in the Parachute Regiment. After making it through the gruelling training process he was posted to Northern Ireland during the height of The Troubles. Once his time with 2 Para was up he qualified for the SAS and completed his training there. But soon after he quit the SAS due to some personal difficulties and joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a Special Patrol Group. After one year Asher quit the RUC as well, realizing that a life surrounded by violence was wearing on his soul and that the conflict in Ulster simply wasn't his war to fight. I found Shoot to Kill a fascinating read. I like learning about the experiences of people involved in The Troubles – how daily life in a developed Western country existed alongside domestic terrorism and lawlessness – and it's told from the viewpoint of a young man struggling with his self-confidence and sense of identity. And yet you can tell how his training and development amongst the elite of Britain's armed forces gave Asher such a sense of empowerment and pride. Anyone who likes books about boot camp and training should check out Shoot to Kill. The only downside is that there's not much SAS action in it. Otherwise, Asher's memoirs is a fine read.

One Soldier's War in Chechnya by Arkady Babchenko. Portobello Books, 2007.

This freakin' book, man. This might just be the most depressing book I've ever read (and I've read The Jungle for crying out loud!) I knew that things in post-Soviet Russia and Chechnya were bad but still this book was a real eye-opener. Taking place in both Chechen Wars (mid-1990's and early 2000's), One Soldier's War depicts the army of what was once the world's second most powerful nation as little more than an undisciplined horde of barbarians, thieves, and drunkards. No wonder the Russians lost the first war: they were beating eachother up as much as they were the Chechen rebels! The infamously brutal Russian practice of dedovshchina is on full display and life for the average soldier didn't get much easier after boot camp. Being constantly surrounded by danger, corruption, and abuse made it easy for grunts to feel depressed, worthless, and hopeless. Regrettably, the book's veracity does often come into question amongst those who have read it. In the preface Babchenko states that while “everything in [the book] is true” some events told within have been “shifted in time”, he personally didn't witness every event, and that in a few cases he “combined two or three persons into one character”. Real or fake, One Soldier's War is still a powerful read that's hard to put down. But I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart.

Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and Women who Fought There by Mark Baker. Berkley Books, 1981.

I know, technically Nam isn't a combat memoir but I figured oral history is close enough. An oral history book such as this one is a collection of interviews from people who took part in or witnessed historical events. Nam's sources range from troopers to pilots, nurses to doctors, pacifists to patriots, killers to POWs: all of them Americans who were involved in the Vietnam War. These accounts – ranging in length from a couple paragraphs to a dozen pages – encompass a wide range of tones, viewpoints, and experiences. Pretty much everything from enlistment (or in some cases conscription) to homecoming is covered. However, as was the case with One Soldier's War in Chechnya, I couldn't help but question how truthful it all was since these are the memories of scores of unidentified people. Nevertheless, if you want a general overview of what the Vietnam War was like for the boots-on-the-ground average American participant, Nam is a fine place to start.

Storming the Falklands: My War and After by Tony Banks. Abacus, 2012.

As was the case with Nam, it might be a little misleading to call Storming the Falklands a combat memoir. A more accurate classification would be “an autobiography starring the Falklands War”. Tony Banks was an average working class youth in the rough-and-tumble Scottish town of Dundee who joined the army and served with 2 Para during the war in the South Atlantic. His experience there was nasty, brutish, and short. A significant portion of the book deals with his life after the war, about how he lived with this sense of anger, frustration, and a single-minded drive for success that still didn't satisfy him even after becoming a millionaire. About 18 years after the war Banks broke down and realized that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The book ends with him coming to terms with his experiences, travelling to some familiar places. In spite of – or possibly because of – it being so different from other combat books I've read I found Storming the Falklands to be a riveting read. Most other combat memoirs come to an end once the war is over or once the author comes home, but Tony Banks reminds us that even after the fighting our veterans need our support.

Poilu: The World War I Notebooks of Corporal Louis Barthas, Barrelmaker, 1914-18 by Louis Barthas. Yale University Press, 2014 (English translation).

Originally published in French in 1978, Poilu is the collection of notebooks kept by Louis Barthas who more-or-less spent the entire First World War on and around the front lines. By the time the war began Barthas, a reservist, was not only a zealous socialist who hated militarism but also was in his late-30's which is pretty old by soldiering standards. As a result pretty much every page of Poilu is filled to the margins with criticism, sarcasm, and complaining about everything from incompetent officers and wasteful tactics to the lousy weather and pitiful sleeping quarters. Sometimes it's humorous while other times it's serious and tragic. With everything Barthas went through it's a miracle he was never wounded, although as the war went on he certainly became exhausted and worn out. War from the viewpoint of a mature artisan in early 20^th century France frequently takes on a religious perspective and attention is always drawn when the author comes across another soldier from his hometown of Peyriac-Minervois. However with so many place names and with so many people to keep track of the book can be a bit dense at times. Also the author's political beliefs often manifest in an overbearing self-righteousness: does he think that only socialists value human life? Do only socialists dislike war? Regardless, Poilu is still an interesting look into the French trooper's day-to-day life more than one hundred years ago.

LRRP Team Leader by John Burford. Ivy Books, 1994.

One subgenre of combat memoirs I find fascinating is that of the elite soldier or special forces soldier. In the Vietnam War the US Army made use of Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (LRRPs, pronounced as “lurps”) that would be deployed in small teams deep into enemy territory. Their missions included things such as observing enemy outposts/movements, rescuing downed pilots, staging ambushes, and calling in airstrikes. Burford's book LRRP Team Leader is a short book that sheds light on how LRRPs operated with such a high level of professionalism and calmness in the face of danger. In spite of the high level of tactics involved the book never gets too technical on the reader. In fact it gets pretty personal by the end, as Burford's uncomfortable homecoming ends up with him becoming estranged from his family. In short, if you like books about professional soldiers or counterinsurgency then LRRP Team Leader is a book you'll want to check out.

That's all for this time, but come back soon for Part 2. Thanks for reading.

Movie Review -- Overlord

  Remember Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? Wasn't that movie cool? Don't you wish there were more historical-fantasy movies like that that didn't take themselves so seriously and instead just focused on being fun? Fear not, comrades, because Overlord has got you covered. Covered in the blood and guts of Nazi scum, that is!

  Overlord takes place on the eve of D-Day and follows a squad of American paratroopers dropping into France to assist with the Allied invasion at Normandy. After an exhilarating opening scene – that reminds me of Band of Brothers, but way more scary – the men find themselves approaching their objective, but they soon stumble upon a more gruesome discovery. Gruesomeness and violence follows, the good old typical Nazisploitation stuff.

  Julius Avery directs this frightening adventure and he does horror well. The tone shifts handily between exciting action, mild humour, uneasy suspense, and gripping tension in this film that carries itself seriously but not too seriously. Overlord is also a rather gory film and its special effects get the point across nicely.

  Needless to say, a film about Nazi supersoldier experiments gone wrong requires a little suspension of disbelief. Overlord isn't a historically accurate film by any means, especially when you consider that (A) the US Army in this film isn't segregated, (B) it apparently only took these troops three months to go from unenlisted civilians to fully trained, combat-ready soldiers on the front lines, and (C) wounded troops are seemingly left on the front lines to just tough it out.

  The film also leaves us with a few unanswered questions, such as why paratroopers in the middle of enemy territory aren't being quiet. What happened to the experimented people that weren't in the church, like the aunt? Or was the aunt the only one the Germans released? Why did that German motorcyclist return to his comrades when he knew he really shouldn't have?

  In spite of these shortcomings, Overlord remains a thrilling experience well worth the time of anyone who likes horror movies, war movies, science fiction movies, B-movies, or any combination thereof. It's a lot of fun and it's the closest we're going to get to a Wolfenstein movie. I try not to publish really short reviews like this but there really isn't much else to say about Overlord. It's a good film and if it sounds interesting to you then you oughta watch it.

Grade:

Movie Review -- 12 Strong

  Has it really been sixteen and a half years since 9/11? Has it really been four years since Lone Survivor? I think the better question is have modern-war films changed so little in the past four years?

  12 Strong is a film about the very first US special forces mission in Afghanistan following the September 11^th attacks. The team of Green Berets and CIA paramilitary officers try to assist the Northern Alliance forces in pushing the Taliban out of key cities, thus denying safe havens for al-Qaeda. I haven't read the book this film is based on but the plot seems pretty believable, I guess. It also seems very straightforward and lacking in depth. It's more of a “here's our mission; let's get it done” sort of film. A better title for 12 Strong could've been chosen as well. Sure there's 12 US soldiers, but they hardly did this mission all on their own. Besides, the main focus of the story is the relationship between team leader Capt. Mitch Nelson (Chris Hemsworth) and General Abdul Rashid Dastum (David Negahban), one of the Northern Alliance's leaders. The most intriguing part of the story is in watching these two men try to respect and work with eachother.

  As mentioned above, 12 Strong is a film that doesn't go too deep into the historical significance (post-2001) of its events, the ramifications of US involvement in the Middle East, or the ethics of war in general (which is something Lone Survivor tried exploring). This here is a good old patriotic war movie that doesn't try asking tough questions.

  Where 12 Strong does show depth is in its attention to detail. For example in one scene that takes place in a village recently liberated from the Taliban we see children flying kites and playing games, both of which were prohibited under the Islamic fundamentalist regime. The film also does a fine job of illustrating just how fractured and complicated a country Afghanistan is and that peace in this region of the world is a very fragile thing.

  A commendable amount of care was taken in portraying the US soldiers... sort of. Let me explain. Most of the soldier characters aren't all that deep – even the ones played by big name actors – but they do look and behave like real soldiers. Their work ethic and sense of hunour seems believable for special forces operatives. The actors – especially Negahban, Michael Pena, Michael Shannon, and William Fitchner – all do a fine job. Foremost among them is Chris Hemsworth who employs his charisma to satisfying effect as the embattled Captain Nelson struggling to hold fragile alliances together and work with the finite assets at his disposal.

  I should also mention that 12 Strong is a pretty good-looking movie with capable direction. Its action scenes are very thrilling and comfortably fast-paced thanks to the admirable editing on display.

In short, 12 Strong is your standard, easily digestible war movie. It's not dissimilar to Lone Survivor, although it is a bit less gritty and and has a more heroic tone to it. If you're looking for a war movie or action movie that isn't so heavy then 12 Strong might be worth a try.

P.S. – Will Fitchner's bald head looks really weird in this film, doesn't it?

Grade:

Movie Review -- Dunkirk

   A blockbuster WWII movie whose story has nothing to do with the USA? A Christopher Nolan movie that isn't two and a half hours long? A WWII movie about the Allies losing a battle? Well, colour me interested. This is Dunkirk, a war film about the miraculous evacuation of British and French troops across the English Channel during the late stages of the disastrous Battle of France.

   One thing to know about Dunkirk is that it tells three different (fictional) stories with differing durations which don't always take place at the same time. The first, The Mole, follows Tommy, a British trooper trying to find a way off the beach. The second, The Sea, is about civilian yachtsmen who sail out to assist in the evacuation. And the third story concerns Spitfire pilots flying across the channel to provide air cover for the soldiers on the beach. In typical Nolan fashion, time is structurally warped from scene to scene to create a story that is still cohesive. Only at the film's climax do the three stories converge.

   Comparable to war movies like Black Hawk Down (2001), Dunkirk is one of those war films whose primary focus is on the current moment, eschewing the philosophical themes typically found throughout Nolan's filmography. There's not much backstory – or even much dialogue at all in some scenes – and the story's emotional weight is carried by what's not said, like frightened soldiers turning their heads to the sky or a shell-shocked trooper crouched alone atop a capsized vessel. This means that the action is put on the forefront, making Dunkirk a very intense, though not remarkably violent, movie.

   The tradeoff to this focus on spectacle is that less emphasis is placed on characterization. The characters aren't uninteresting, but you will struggle to remember their names. There's even a couple characters I had trouble telling apart! The acting is pretty good throughout, though I'd say the best performances belong to Mark Rylance as Mr. Dawson the mariner and Cillian Murphy as the Shivering Soldier.

   As mentioned earlier, Dunkirk's visuals take centre stage. That suits this movie just fine, especially when you've got a director shooting in IMAX and 70mm film, with breathtaking shots, exquisitely detailed sets, props, and costumes, and extensive use of practical effects. In addition to being a sight to behold, Dunkirk is also an audio marvel. The sound design gives each weight to each bullet fired and each rumbling explosion. The score by Hans Zimmer also goes a long way to adding to the film's tension, just as with 2008's The Dark Knight.

   And that's Dunkirk, a gripping war film with stellar production value and the outstanding directing that Christopher Nolan is known for. Is it one of the best war films ever made as some critics are suggesting? It's tough to say since there are so many different types of war movies. I'd say that at least for the combat-action subgenre of war films this is one of the best in quite a long time. So you oughtta watch it.

Grade:

The Longest Day (1962) Vs. A Bridge Too Far (1977)

   You know what's cool? War films. What could be cooler than seeing the adventure and all-out action, depictions of armies coordinating and fighting using tactics and fearsome technology in colossal battles where the stakes are huge? I'll tell ya what's cooler: war movies that are based on true stories. I'm talking about films like The Pianist (2002), Downfall (Der Untergang, 2004), Sergeant York (1941), Zulu (1964), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), those types of films. There's something truly special about movies that try to recreate these types of history-changing events. Today I'm going to be comparing two of the big classic heavyweights of this genre: 1962's The Longest Day and 1977's A Bridge Too Far.

   First let's start with the similarities. Both films are based on non-fiction books by Cornelius Ryan which detail some of the largest and most daring operations of the Western Allies in the Second World War: The Longest Day covers the D-Day invasion while A Bridge Too Far recounts Operation Market Garden. Both films are big-budget epics with huge set piece action scenes, impressive attention to detail, foreign languages, and long run times. They've also each got extraordinary casts made up of the biggest stars of their respective periods. TLD's ensemble included Paul Anka, Richard Burton, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, Kenneth More, and John Wayne. ABTF boasted Dirk Bogarde, James Caan, Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Anthony Hopkins, Lawrence Olivier, Robert Redford, and Maximilian Schell.

   Interestingly both films feature Sean Connery, though his appearance in TLD is rather short. The Longest Day was the last film Connery did before taking on the role of James Bond later that year and rising to international stardom. And speaking of agent 007, TLD also includes German-born actors Gert Frobe and Curd Jurgens who played Bond villains Auric Goldfinger (Goldfinger, 1964) and Karl Stromberg (The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977), respectively. (On a side note, Roger Moore was originally offered the role of General Horrocks in ABTF, but turned it down due to scheduling conflicts with The Spy Who Loved Me.)

   Both films are remembered fondly today with respectable contemporary reviews. However only The Longest Day received any recognition at the Academy Awards, with two wins (Special Effects, Cinematography) and three additional nominations. (Just a side note, TLD was originally released in black-and-white while ABTF has always been in colour.)

   Now on to the differences, starting with the action. The action scenes of both films are very good. They range from small skirmishes – like a handful of guys trying to run across an occupied town unnoticed – to large set piece battles – like hundreds of troops storming a beach or a dozen tanks being blown up by anti-tank guns. Both films' action scenes are very much a product of their respective times, and I don't just mean that A Bridge Too Far's play out better thanks to a larger budget and more sophisticated special effects. The Longest Day came out in a period where war in film was romanticized and idealized. As a result, its action scenes are bloodless and feel like adventures for our heroes to embark upon. The action scenes in A Bridge Too Far are more gritty and intense (though not as visceral as today's war films). Of course, this is likely also due to the film's narrative compared to TLD; Operation Overlord was an Allied success whereas Operation Market Garden was a failure that resulted in heavy Allied casualties. The more intense action scenes in ABTF are a good way of instilling a sense of urgency. This sentiment simply does not exist in The Longest Day where we are told that all the action will take place during one day. Also, TLD takes forever to finally give us some action; the planning and preparation scenes aren't as interesting as they are in ABTF.

   Both films are reasonably historically accurate, but I think there is some friction to be found between the nationalities portrayed (which let's face it, happens with pretty much every war film). The Longest Day follows characters who are German, American, British, and French – both French resistance fighters and army commandos. Hmm... who's missing? Oh yeah. THE CANADIANS!!! There's no Canadian characters and (if I'm remembering correctly) I don't think their contributions to Operation Overlord are even mentioned. For a film that tries to pay respect to the brave men who put their lives on the line for the sake of freedom TLD really dropped the ball there. Overall, the most screen time goes to US Army soldiers.

   A Bridge Too Far focuses on characters who are British, American, Polish, German, and Dutch. With this flick, most of the screen time goes to the British armed forces. I like this change; it was the British paratroopers who landed at Arnhem and Arnhem is the crucial location of the whole operation. There's still no Canadians present, but since the film focuses more on combat and only Canadian engineers were involved in Market Garden I don't think it's as big a deal as in TLD. No, this time the short end of the stick goes to Field Marshall Montgomery and (especially) General Browning. Blaming Montgomery for Market Garden's failure has become the popular thing to do since the war's end (and he somewhat deserves it), but since Montgomery isn't given a portrayal in this movie Browning (played by Dirk Bogarde) is made out to be the bad guy. He keeps a smug smile on his face as he ignores intelligence reports and intimidates his peers and subordinates into obeying Montgomery's plans. This portrayal of Browning understandably caused a bit of controversy amongst those who personally knew the General in real life.

   However there was one performance in ABTF that I felt was done even worse than Bogarde's and that is Ryan O'Neal as Brig Gen James Gavin. His soft demeanour and passive voice do not at all make him appear as a hardened career soldier, but rather some wimpy pushover who gets his hopes up about everything. It's as if he asks people to do things instead of telling them. As for The Longest Day, the rotten turkey award goes to John Wayne as LT Col Benjamin Vandervoort. Why is John Wayne in a Second World War movie? I've never been a big Duke fan; he basically just plays himself in every one of his movies. But this one is particularly weird since he's playing a character who's supposed to be half his age! They picked him just for his star power. It couldn't have been anything else.

   But most of The Longest Day's acting is pretty good, even if there's no truly standout performances (though to be fair that may just be because I'm not too familiar with most of TLD's actors). In A Bridge Too Far, I'd say the best acting comes from Anthony Hopkins as Lt. Col. John Frost and James Caan as SSG Eddie Dohun.

   However, one problem shared by both films is that their cast is too big. They both have so many big-name actors and they try jamming in so many characters that most of them are relegated to only a few scenes. For instance, Gert Frobe has maybe two minutes of screen time in TLD. James Caan is given two scenes (two and a half, tops) in ABTF. For crying out loud, Robert Redford is on screen for approximately ten and a half minutes minutes in ABTF – despite rumours of him being that film's highest-paid actor! This doesn't give us much of a chance to get to know or care about most of the characters whose names you'll struggle to remember.

   Which brings us to the last point of contention, the story. Each film has a story with a very different feeling to it that roughly reflects their subject material. As stated before, TLD is focused on one day of combat and so each subplot and character arc is rather short. There's five different beaches being stormed as well as a vast swath of countryside being attacked by resistance fighters and paratroopers dropping in. The characters are all working towards a common goal – the liberation of Normandy – but their subplots rarely converge and can feel a bit disjointed, probably because that goal was still far from being achieved by the end of Overlord's first day. Instead The Longest Day is but the first step in an epic, grand crusade; a “feel-good war movie”, if you will.

   A Bridge Too Far is more a lesson against the folly of one's own hubris. It's about an Army Group that tried biting off more than it could chew. The tone is more intense and more urgent. Additionally, the characters' successes are interdependent. Lt. Col. Frost can only do his job if Lt. Col. Vandeleur can only do his job if Major Cook can only do his job if Col. Stout can only do his job if Maj. Fuller can only do his job if Gen. Browning would only let him. The subplots and character arcs each feel like they're leading somewhere (except maybe Sergeant Dohun's); they're moving with a purpose in the same direction just as XXX Corps is in a race against time to reach the Arnhem bridge.

   This is why I think ABTF is the superior movie. They're both great – though not perfect, 90% successful – classic entries in the war genre. They've each got some impressive action scenes and chances are you might find one of your favourite actors in one of them. If you like WWII films, then just give both of them a try. Just bear in mind that I think you'll end up enjoying A Bridge Too Far a bit more.

Movie Review -- Wonder Woman

   Seventy-four years. It's really taken this long for Wonder Woman to have her own feature-length, theatrically released, live-action film? Batman's had nine and Superman's had eight (if we don't count Suicide Squad or The Lego Movie), but despite being considered one of DC Comics' Big Three, Diana Prince has had to wait until 2017 to finally have a starring role in a movie of her own. So was it worth the wait? Let's take a look!

   Wonder Woman tells us the origin of its titular hero from her formative years on the Island of Themyscira to her first exposure to mankind in Europe during the First World War. This makes for a pretty interesting and different origin story (though it might just feel that way because we haven't seen numerous on-screen re-imaginings of it). The overall story isn't terribly original, but it's done with a new character we only had a brief taste of in 2016's Batman v Superman, so I'm game. Plus it takes place in WWI, which is awesome. Wonder Woman's themes focus heavily on war, bringing to question the morality and consequences of armed conflict amidst the backdrop of one of the most morally-confusing wars in modern history. A good choice, I think. The film isn't as joylessly serious as the other films of the DCEU, but is still well-grounded with real life dilemmas. The whole war theme feels fresh for a superhero movie and it makes it stand out from any other DC film that I've ever seen – although there a couple moments where the film strays awfully close to a “hero the world needs, not the hero it deserves” line. There's also a couple moments where the dialogue feels a little too Care Bears-y.

   One thing I found to be a great relief was that Wonder Woman completely avoids progressive and SJW sentimentality. It doesn't shove toxic feminism down your throat. It doesn't make its audience members feel ashamed or guilty about anything. It doesn't tell you to hashtag BLM, revoke the 2^nd Amendment, impeach Trump, or any stupid crap like that. It's OK to like this movie regardless of your politics.

   Just don't expect a history lesson from watching this movie. Most obvious thing ever, I know, but as a student of history I was bothered by a few historical inconsistencies. For example, the film takes place in the Fall of 1918 but it suggests that the Germans still have a chance at holding out and prolonging the war. No mention is made of the German Revolution. Hydrogen is presented as a viable ingredient in mustard gas. And worst of all, Erich Ludendorff has no moustache! Disgraceful.

   Lots of people are going to be comparing Wonder Woman to 2011's Captain America: First Avenger so let's get this part out of the way now. While both movies have similar plots and even scenes (WW's climax partially rips off CA:FA's ending), the tone is pretty different. While First Avenger feels like a traditional superhero movie Wonder Woman feels more like a straight-up war film. WW deals with more relevant themes, is slightly more life-like (relatively speaking; these are superhero films after all), and has the main character actually fighting Germans, something Captain America never did in his film.

   Let's talk about the acting. It's rather good. Gal Gadot does a wonderful job of portraying the wonderful heroine with just the right mix of bravery, earnestness, and naivete. In the role of American (of course) spy hero Steve Trevor is Chris Pine, whose performance is just as good as you'd expect; no surprises. There's also Danny Huston as Colonel Stryker, I mean Colonel Stryker, I mean General Ludendorff, I mean Colonel Stryker. And lastly we have Elena Anaya as the diabolical Isabel Maru – AKA Dr Poison – who, while she isn't terribly interesting as a character, does have a cool appearance.

   And that's Wonder Woman, a capable superhero movie for both WW fans and non-WW fans alike. It manages to pull off the delicate balance of being both enjoyable and serious enough to both entertain you and make you think, something not easy to achieve for superhero films. It's easily the best – some might say the only good – movie of the DC Extended Universe so far, and as far as I'm concerned it went to the hero who deserved it most.

   And remember, just because you can't see the invisible jet doesn't mean it isn't there.

Rating:

Top 20 Best Movies I've Ever Seen - Part 2

10. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

For decades war films had taken the form of heroic tales of exciting, virtuous adventures and flattering depictions of easily-identifiable goodguys. It wasn't until the 1980's and 90's that Hollywood took a grittier and more realistic approach to portraying warfare for a mass audience. Perhaps due to the unpopularity of the particular conflict they depicted, Vietnam War movies like The Deer Hunter (1978), Platoon (1986), and Born on the Fourth of July (1989) led the way. The Second World War didn't receive the tragic, “hell on earth” treatment until movies like Saving Private Ryan came along. Simply speaking, this movie was a game-changer amongst war films. The unflinching violence, the brutal subjective camera, and the sometimes ambiguous morality of it all are now genre tropes. But back in the day, this was shocking stuff. Today the film is still held up by outstanding set design, a moving John Williams score, and some spot-on acting, especially from Tom Hanks. Well done, soldier.

9. Paths of Glory (1957)

Paths of Glory may be one of Stanley Kubrick's more underrated films, but upon watching it is clear that it stands abreast of the rest of his great work. Maybe its status as an early anti-war film which brought it a great amount of controversy in its time is the reason why it doesn't have the attention it deserves today. In any case, it serves as a great example of how institutionalized nationalism and patriotism can become a ravenous, self-destructive force. In this example, it takes the form of a witch hunt: three seemingly random French troops are being court-martialed for cowardice after their regiment failed to capture the heavily fortified “Ant Hill” in what was basically a suicide charge. Kirk Douglas gives a most impassioned performance as Colonel Dax, the officer who has chosen to defend the three. Throughout the film are great examples of Kubrick's eye for framing and camera movement: too many to list here. Just watch it, you'll see what I'm talking about.

8. Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

This is an epic movie. This should be one of the fist movies that comes to mind when you hear the term “epic movie”. Not only does it have outstanding production designs, stunning cinematography, an iconic theme song, and an impressive scope, but it also has real drama in which you can't help but feel invested. Peter O'Toole does an impeccable job of portraying a man dealing with several different struggles at once: to liberate Arabia from Ottoman rule, to learn how to be a proper leader, to unite the Arab tribes into one cohesive nation, to find his own identity, to cope with the war's bloody violence, and to determine his true allegiance. Suffice it to say, T.E. Lawrence is one of the most complex and fascinating characters in movie history. If you're even a slight fan of old movies, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by not watching this classic.

7. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)

Face it: you're probably humming that theme song to yourself already. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is one of the most iconic movies ever made. And it's certainly one of the coolest. Words can barely describe the amount of satisfaction and just straight up fun one can have from watching this legendary film. The final entry of Sergio Leone's grand Dollars Trilogy, this flick finds Clint Eastwood playing the Man With No Name in a race to find buried Confederate gold. One problem: he has to team up with his slimy, rotten yet resourceful former partner in crime, Tuco. Played expertly by Eli Wallach, Tuco steals every scene he's in; he's one of those bad guys you love to hate. Rounding out the titular trio is Lee Van Cleef as the ruthless bounty hunter Angel Eyes. Add to this Ennio Moricone's classic score and Leone's oh-so-stylish direction, and it's no wonder why so many people consider this the best western ever made. It's certainly got my vote.

6. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

Come to think of it, this might just be the oldest feature length film I've ever seen. Despite the old-school acting style on display, it doesn't always feel like it. For its time, All Quiet on the Western Front showcased sophisticated camerawork and set piece battle scenes. They really went all in, possibly making this the first epic war movie ever made. The novel All Quiet on the Western Front just happens to be one of my favourite books and I can say that this film is very faithful in recreating the story of a group of young men who are forever changed by their experiences in WWI. It's an intense movie that doesn't shy away from distressing subjects. It's a film that has aged well, hauntingly relevant for all generations.

5. The Godfather (1972)

Mhm. Sorry to be predictable, but The Godfather really is one of the best ever. There's no denying it. It's got fabulous direction, a timeless score, outstanding performances, and a deep, tragic plot. Everybody who watches movies at all knows about it and holds it in high esteem. So why didn't I rank it at #1? Well simply put, there's a few moments in it that I think are boring. Yeah, I said it. There are a handful of boring scenes in this movie: it seemed the part with Michael in Sicily just would not end! Despite this, The Godfather is an excellent piece of cinematic history. It's just that the next time I watch it I'll make sure to have the skip button handy.

4. Taxi Driver (1976)

King Missile rejoice: I strongly believe that Taxi Driver is Martin Scorsese's strongest work. His direction with this effort is just astounding. The camerawork is so intuitive and organic, panning and following items just as a person's eyes would. (Scorsese also makes one of the greatest director cameo appearances ever in one memorable scene.) New York City's authentic 1970's dirt and sleaze just seems to permeate the screen and engulf the viewer into the film's grimy and corrupt environment. Travis Bickle, portrayed impeccably by Robert De Niro, is one of the most fascinating movie characters of all time. This depressed, lonely, paraniod Vietnam veteran insomniac is so interesting and unpredictable, you can't help but wonder what he's thinking. And that theme song: classic. In short, if you haven't seen Taxi Driver before, then do it. The whole thing is like a feel-good movie gone horribly wrong: it's the anti-feel-good movie.

3. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

Stanley Kubrick sure does make a lot of movies about war, which is great because I like watching movies about war. Paths of Glory depicted war as unjust. Full Metal Jacket depicted war as insane. And Dr. Strangelove depicts war as a farce. With the threat of nuclear warfare hanging in the balance, the stakes have never dared to have been so high for a comedy before or since. What's cool about the world of comedy is that there's very few subjects that are taboo. Sometimes the world throws some scary stuff at you, and sometimes the only reasonable thing to do is laugh about it, which is exactly what Dr. Strangelove sets out to do. The film's got an array of memorable characters – the jingoistic Gen. Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott), the exasperated President Merkin Muffley (Peter Sellers), the mad scientist title character (also Sellers), the cowboy bomber pilot Maj. Kong (Slim Pickens), the delusional nationalist Gen. Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), and the absurdly polite Capt. Lionel Mandrake – all portrayed excellently, bringing on home a manic energy rarely seen in Kubrick's works. Combine this with some iconic set design, some memorable lines, and the director's signature camera techniques and sense of irony and you've got what I think is the greatest comedy movie ever made. And as long as nuclear warfare is just a button-press away, Dr. Strangelove will remain just as relevant as ever.

2. Pulp Fiction (1994)

If you like movies that have a lot of dialogue, then you'll absolutely love Pulp Fiction. This movie's dialogue is so intricate and so natural and so engaging and so memorable, you'll find yourself quoting it for the rest of your life. This film's screenplay – eclectic, episodic, engaging, out of order, and delightfully awkward – very much deserved its Academy Award. It's a very original film without a single dull moment and it certainly stands out amongst all other films before or since. Pulp Fiction, a film about one (well, technically two) day(s) in the life of a bunch of LA lowlifes who espouse their philosophical beliefs to each other, is a fun movie to watch over and over again. This is largely thanks to its abundance of engaging characters. The cynical Vincent Vega (John Travolta), the hot mess Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman), the defiant tough guy Butch (Bruce Willis), mob boss Marsellus Wallace (Ving Rhames), and the cool Winston Wolfe (Harvey Keitel) all are really neat folks to follow. But by far the best is Jules Winnfield played by Samuel L. Jackson. This talkative, easily-excitable, badass motherf----- is one of the most entertaining movie characters of his generation. His story of redemption is the capstone on this treasure of a film. Go watch it now.

1. Apocalypse Now (1979)

I sure do watch a lot of war films, and without a doubt Apocalypse Now is the very best of them. While it's a movie that doesn't focus too much on actual combat, it does provide an epic journey through war's morality and psychology. Epic: that's the perfect word to describe this film. A hybrid of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Homer's Odyssey, Apocalypse Now's scenes each feel like a struggle against the forces of insanity and pure evil. You can practically feel the weight of each and every bullet fired, and each line spoken feels as if it's leading to something big. Martin Sheen – as Capt. Willard – and Marlon Brando – as Col. Kurtz – each take their characters to extraordinarily dark places in haunting performances viewers won't soon forget. Director Francis Ford Coppola gives it his all on this gorgeous-looking film, lending it a psychedelic, dreamy, myth-like feel. Watching a movie like this will definitely make one understand the mindset of the US soldiers in Vietnam who went to great lengths to remind themselves of home and distract themselves from their loneliness and anxiety. Because as poor Kurtz came to understand, war tends to reveal truths about just how close to the abyss one's soul can wander. One of the film's many unforgettable lines sums this up perfectly: “The horror... the horror.” And this is what makes Apocalypse Now the greatest movie I've ever seen.

Movie Review Repost - Fury (2014)

Continuing this week's theme of remembrance (my Hacksaw Ridge review was posted earlier this week), I thought it might be cool to repost my original review of Fury. That movie was pretty cool. I watched it again last year and I still liked it. My thoughts of it now are basically the same as before. Here's hoping that next years's big WWII movie, Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk, will match the caliber of its recent brethren.

   This week the heavy barrage of homework let up enough for me to liberate my movie theatre seat and watch Fury, a Second World War movie about American tankers. Does it succeed at becoming an instant classic or does this behemoth end up running out of gas? Let's find out!

   Fury follows the crew of the titular M4 tank who are a part of the 66^th Armoured Regiment, advancing deep into Nazi Germany in April 1945. Their assistant driver is killed and replaced by Norman, a typist who isn't prepared to take part in combat at all. Fury benefits from a strong first half which raises a lot of ethical issues. There's also a few calm scenes for character development, one of which (the apartment scene) felt a little too long. But I have to mention, this has got to be one of the grimmest movies I've ever seen. The imagery you'll see, especially in the first half-hour, is extremely rough, even for a war film.

   Unfortunately the film does sort of fall apart in the last action scene, which is so over-dramatized that it more closely resembles a cheesy video game than a badass war film. It's also riddled with questionable tactical decisions by both sides. Like why are the Germans attacking in waves? Why did they wait so long to use the rocket launchers? Is the middle of a firefight really the best time to have your troops stand in formation while you give a rousing speech? Why didn't the tankers stock up their machine gun ammo inside the tank? And most of all, why are the tankers so committed to this mission? It's importance isn't built up or explained very well like it was in Saving Private Ryan. The film also has kind of an abrupt ending without much resolution.

   At least the acting is pretty good. Brad Pitt is pretty much always good, just as he is here as Sergeant Wardaddy. Wardaddy is an interesting character; he's definitely battle-hardened but he still privately feels sadness and regret. It's a pity we don't get to learn that much about him. Shia LeBoeuf is decent as gunner “Bible” Swan, even though his character is kind of one-note. Logan Lerman does a fine job at portraying Norman. The anxiety this main character feels really comes through as it's through his view that we see the war.

   As far as I can tell, this movie's events are portrayed pretty accurately (except for the opening text crawl that says that Germany turned to total war only in April 1945. Sigh...). But one of Fury's main strengths comes from its production value. Everything looks amazing: the sets, the uniforms, and, of course, the tanks. Plus, you can actually see it! There's no stupid shaky cam or at least a very limitedly-shaky one. (Isn't it sad that I have to praise a movie for not having that issue?)

   Also I gotta say, Fury is pretty daring in that it shows US troops committing atrocities. That's pretty rare for an American WWII movie. In addition, this film refreshingly contains absolutely zero US flags.

   In short, Fury is a violent, testosterone-filled experience definitely not for all ages. Though it isn't as good as Saving Private Ryan (its story, characters, and realism aren't quite as strong), it has intense action scenes and it more than delivers on the “horrors of war”.

Rating: three and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review - Hacksaw Ridge

   Happy Remembrance Day, and what better way to observe it by seeing a nice movie about a real life dude who served his country and his God proud during the Second World War.

   Hacksaw Ridge is about Desmond Doss, a young pacifist who still wants to be able to contribute to the war effort. He tries enlisting in the army with the hopes that he will become a medic, but runs into trouble when he refuses to touch a weapon due to his religious convictions. This movie's plot could somewhat-accurately be described as a blend of the boot camps of Captain America: First Avenger and Full Metal Jacket plus the Vietnam battle scene of Forrest Gump. It's a great story of a man staying true to his beliefs. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll get scared. There's even a decent romance. This movie's got everything! Well, almost: I think it might've benefited even from just a short scene at the end where Desmond sees his family again.

   But this can be forgiven in light of Hacksaw Ridge's in-freaking-tense battle scenes. Up close, dirty, loud, gritty, and extremely violent, the battle scenes here are some of the most intense I've seen since Passchendaele (2008) or even Saving Private Ryan (1998). Well done, Mel Gibson. This is helped by the impeccable special effects and direction, recreating all the gory nastiness. Take note, this is not a film for the squeamish.

   Hacksaw Ridge also boasts some exceptional acting. Andrew Garfield as Desmond Doss is amazing. He does a great job depicting a humble hero struggling to do what he knows is right against all kinds of adversity. Hugo Weaving is good as Doss's alcoholic, shell-shocked veteran father. Even Vince Vaughn, whom I normally don't care much for, is good here! He plays the zero-tolerance, hard-as-nails Sergeant Howell leading his men through both boot camp and Okinawa. There's also a bunch of likable side characters, each portrayed handily.

   Thinking about this film beyond the surface level raises some questions. Like, “does this count as a faith-based movie?” While the main character is a very religious person who prays and reads the Bible a lot, the movie doesn't exactly shove his faith right down your throat like a lot of other religious movies do nowadays. I'd call this more of a tale of virtue/morality. Another question one might wonder is: “is this a pro-war film?” It kind of is, which is a rare thing nowadays. Although the battle scenes are depicted as bloody and terrifying, they are still very exciting, even heroic. Plus the whole movie is about a guy trying to serve in the army (saving soldiers lives) after enlisting – even though in real life Desmond Doss was drafted. At least Gibson chose to not drown his audience in a sea of US flags.

   In conclusion, Hacksaw Ridge is a brilliant film with a strong theme and stronger performances. It feels complete. It's the best war film I've seen in recent years, even better than 2014's American Sniper. If you like war movies or if you like feel-good movies that have lots of carnage and bloodshed then this is definitely one you should check out.

Grade: four-and-a-half out of five.

Movie Review Repost - American Sniper (2015)

Hey, people. I'm still in the middle of packing/moving this week, still pretty busy. I want you to know that I've started work on some new articles for Anachronarchy, but it may be a week or two before they're ready for posting. Thank you for being so patient. In the meantime, since I just saw a Clint Eastwood movie earlier this week (Sully) I thought it'd be appropriate to repost the review I did of his previous film, American Sniper. Enjoy.

   War is hell, and while American Sniper may not be quite as grim or depressing as Fury was last year, its portrayal of extraordinary violence upon individuals is just as devastating and perhaps even more relevant.

   American Sniper is based on the autobiography of Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle, a Navy SEALs marksman who served four tours of combat in Iraq from 2003 to 2009. The plot swings back and forth between Kyle's time overseas, filled with intense action, and his home leaves in Texas where he struggles to reconcile his sense of duty with his family life. In both situations he is faced with heartbreaking dilemmas. This is a film that is neither pro-war nor anti-war; it doesn't take sides in the debates surrounding the Iraq War's conduct. It simply tries to portray it's effects on the lives of the individuals involved. And in this regard, Bradley Cooper does a fantastic job playing the stressed-out main character. Really the only bit of story that could've been improved upon was the final scene, which felt a little clumsy and rushed.

   In the director's chair we have the venerable Clint Eastwood who definitely knows how to make a war film – Letters from Iwo Jima, anyone? From the steady mix of action, drama, and personal struggle it's clear that he has huge respect for veterans and what they've chosen to put themselves through. This is especially evident in the end credits which, after a brief slideshow, are completely silent.

   The production is breath-taking. The sets, the locations, the props, the costumes, the equipment; it all looks amazing. The cinematography is dazzling, giving us some nice-looking longshots (no pun intended). So too is the special effects, especially on the sandstorm towards the end.

   Now with a film that has the word “American” in the title you have to expect a bit of over-the-top foreign patriotism. There's also a couple scenes that I just don't get. What was the point of the crying baby in the nursery scene? Are soldiers really allowed to chat up their girlfriends over the phone in the middle of a mission? Do SEALs ever get orders or are they just allowed to leave their posts and go do whatever they want during missions?

   Regardless, American Sniper is an excellent film on modern warfare. In comparison, it's more poignant than Lone Survivor, but with better action than Green Zone. Overall, it's roughly comparable to the Hurt Locker, but sadder. If you're interested in the personal/psychological consequences of military service, and if you can stomach a bit of violence, then American Sniper is the flick for you. Even if there are no 360 no-scopes in it.

Rating: four-and-a-half stars out of five.

Top 10 Biggest Military Winners of Modern History

So remember way back in December of last year when I published the “Top 10 Biggest Military Losers of Modern History” list? Well, I figured it'd be fun to write a companion list to that spotlighting the most successful wartime nations. My feelings about war only making losers out of societies (i.e. there are no winners) still stands, so for this list I'm ranking it based less on lives lost/territory won and more on the nation's consistency of strategic/tactical victory. Maybe that's why I've found this list so much harder to compose than the top 10 losers list. As with last time, only conflicts taking place after 1800 will be counted. And as always, this list is simply my take on things: disagree, if you wish.

Honourable Mentions: Vietnam, South Korea, and Russia/USSR even though they were on the top 10 losers list. What can I say? Russians: they win big, they lose big.

10 – Cuba

After twice failing to expel their Spanish overlords (in 1878 and 1880) the Cuban people finally achieved independence in 1898 with American help. After half a century of several uprisings and US interventions, Cuba's government – then headed by the corrupt Bautista regime – came under the control of Fidel Castro's revolutionaries in 1959, taking much of the world by surprise. In 1961, a combined force of American CIAgents and Cuban exiles invaded at the Bay of Pigs, hoping to initiate an uprising against Castro. This invasion failed and became a major embarrassment to US foreign policy. Since then, the Cuban military has attempted both to export their model of popular uprising and to intervene in revolutionary struggles around the world, sometimes successfully (Nicaragua, Angola, Ogaden War) and sometimes unsuccessfully (Congo, Bolivia, Ethiopia).

9 – Prussia

I guess I'm cheating a little bit here by ignoring Prussia's history after 1871, but the Prussians played a huge role in how modern armies and strategies are formed and maintained. Prussia was on the losing side of the War of the Fourth Coalition against Napoleon, resulting in the loss of one-third of its territory and its subjugation to the French. But after defeating Napoleon's France with the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions by 1815, Prussia was granted a huge amount of territory in Westphalia, Saxony, and the Rhineland (which included the industrial centres of the Ruhr). Over the next half-century, the Kingdom of Prussia's political and economic influence swelled to make it the dominant German state of the 19^th century. After losing the First Schleswig War (1848-52) to Denmark, Prussia rallied back with three astounding victories against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and finally France (1870-1). It was after the war against France that the German states became united under Prussian leadership to become the German Empire, which lasted until 1918.

8 – India

In the early 19^th century, India was more-or-less run by the British East India Company. It was under Company Rule that India scored numerous victories against the Persians, the Sikhs, and the Chinese while suffering few losses. But following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British army dissolved the Mughal and Maratha Empires, bringing all of India under the direct governance of the crown. And so for the next 89 years, the rampaging Indians took part in a spectacular stream of conflicts putting down rebellions, expelling raiders, and expanding their territory. India also served in a multitude of colonial wars for their British masters, including both World Wars, the Russian Civil War, and the Turkish War of Independence. Since gaining their own independence in 1947, India has participated in several limited/regional conflicts with mixed success. For example, India lost to China in 1962 but won against Pakistan in 1971.

7 – Australia and New Zealand

Yeah, I know anyone from Australia or New Zealand reading this (like that'll ever happen) is going to be pissed that I've lunked both countries together, but their war records are so similar – and admittedly, I'm not terribly familiar with either nation's history in particular – that I can't separate them. In fact, both countries' troops served together in the combined ANZAC Corps of the First and Second World Wars. Not only that, but most of their wars were victories. Both countries served their British masters in the Second Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion, and both World Wars. After achieving full independence, both nations were involved in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Afghanistan War. The only major difference I can see between the two is that Australia took part in the Iraq War while New Zealand did not. I guess the Australians are the more bloodthirsty of the two.

6 – The United States

Everyone today knows about the seemingly worldwide US hegemony of the mid/late 20^th century, but their international exploits have not always been successful or well-received. Both World Wars were unquestionable wins, and many Americans today dubiously claim that the victories were entirely of their country's doing. The Korean War was technically a stalemate, but I'm willing to count it as a win because the US war aim of preserving the government of the Republic of Korea was achieved. Conversely, the Vietnam War was a loss because the US's goal of preserving the Republic of Vietnam's government was not achieved. The US saw successes against Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, and Yugoslavia. And yet immediately after this time, US forces became bogged down in lengthy wars against insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (twice). However, I do think the USA's military success in the Americas are exceptionally impressive and deserve much more attention. Through the various Indian Wars (which lasted until 1924), Washington DC extended its sovereignty from sea to sea. American territory was massively expanded with very few setbacks (those being the War of 1812 and Red Cloud's War). Moreover, the defeat of Spain in 1898 not only awarded the US with the Philippines and Guam, but more importantly it gave the United States free reign over the republics of Central America and the Caribbean. It was in these countries between 1898 and 1934, US forces staged no fewer than 29 interventions, coups, and occupations in what are now known as the Banana Wars. Oh yeah, there was also that US Civil War; Americans were on both sides so that means the Americans won! And lost. If nothing else, the United States does deserve credit for maintaining one of the largest, best financed, and most advanced militaries in world history.

5 – Canada

Aw yeah, girl! You knew Canada had to be on this list somewhere. So since confederation, Canada had to defend its own turf from the Fenian Raids (from the US) and the Northwest Rebellion (1885). As a loyal member of the British Empire, the Dominion of Canada participated in the Sudan Campaign, the Second Boer War, and the First World War. After attaining independence in 1934, Canada's armed forces fought in the Second World War, Korean War, Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, and the Afghanistan War: all of them victories. In fact, I think the only loss that Canada's army ever suffered was during the Russian Civil War, and that was probably because our troops didn't really get to do anything and were denied the opportunity to wreak the havoc they so dearly craved.

4 – The United Kingdom

No nation in modern history has been involved in more wars than the UK. For the past 200+ years, Britain's armed forces have been one of the most powerful in the world, thanks to its historically outstanding navy and its experienced, professional army. After losing the Wars of the 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Coalition against Napoleon's France, victory finally came in 1815 with the 6^th and 7^th. During the 19^th century, the British Empire expanded – often by conquest – to become the largest empire in world history. By the early 20^th century, the Union Flag was flying over such places as India, Sudan, Egypt, and South Africa: “from Cairo to Cape Town” as was often said. Some wars were fought within the context of colonial competition; i.e. showing off to the other European empires. These sometimes went well (the Crimean War, the Opium Wars), sometimes not so much (First Anglo-Afghan War, the First Boer War). The UK was one the key victors of both World Wars, and despite the Empire reaching its territorial zenith in 1922 the seeds of decline had already been sown. The country was more-or-less bankrupt and the war efforts of the colonies/dominions gave rise to nationalist movements everywhere. British forces notably withdrew from places like Ireland, Palestine, and Egypt just to name a few. Most withdrawals went OK, but the Aden Emergency was a disastrous exception. Other conflicts during the post-war period included the Korean War (a stalemate/win, depending on how you see it), the Suez War (a costly win), the Cyprus Emergency (a costly win), the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. Postwar British forces have had exceptional success in counterinsurgency operations in places like Dhofar, Malaya, and Kenya. During both the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-98) and the Falklands War (1982), Britain successfully defended her territories from terrorists and invaders. Despite recent problems with financing and under-staffing, the British armed forces retains its enviable reputation as an impeccably trained and professional fighting machine.

3 – Israel

The day after declaring its independence in May 1948, Israel was forced to defend itself against a huge coalition of Arab nations. But this coalition was poorly coordinated and was defeated easily. The young nation quickly organized itself as a tightly regimented society, ready to respond in the event of a crisis by mobilizing its substantial reserves. The go-to strategy that emerged was one of a quick and devastating attack (led by air power and fast-moving armour) to eliminate any Arab threat. Israel swiftly defeated Egypt in the Suez War of 1956, but was made to give up its gains. Twice more – in 1967 and 1973 – Israel duked it out with Arab coalitions, and twice more Israel won, albeit at a progressively higher cost each successive time. During these wars, Israel's borders had expanded to include all territories of the former (British) Mandatory Palestine, including the land allotted to the Palestinian Arabs under United Nations resolutions. This nearly 50-years-long occupation has been the source of an incredible amount of unrest – with the two Intifadas from the Palestinians and the multiple crackdowns/supressions from the IDF – which Israeli troops typically win. Elsewhere, Israel's forces have been involved in wars in Lebanon (1982, 2006) with mixed success. Still, when it comes to conventional war nobody does it better than Israel.

2 – Ireland

For decades Irishmen had volunteered for the British military in such conflicts as the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. But the Irish War of Independence in 1919-22 resulted in most of Ireland becoming its own republic. Immediately after this, the new country was engulfed by a brief civil war. The most well-known Irish conflict of the 20^th century was the Troubles, in which Irish republican terrorists and Ulster loyalist terrorists slugged it out over the political status of Northern Ireland while security forces from both the UK and Republic of Ireland tried keeping things under control. After nearly 30 years of turmoil, both sides called it a stalemate. In the meantime, Irish forces had participated in UN operations in Somalia and East Timor. The republic has yet to lose its first war.

1 – Brazil

Brazil is one of those countries that, as far as I can tell, has never lost a war. Ever since winning independence from Portugal in 1824 Brazil has put down numerous rebellions, participated in both World Wars, and fought in a multitude of regional wars against countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay: and always on the winning side. No wonder they have such a big country.