Announcement: New Blog Name

Hello, readers. Tony here with a special announcement: I'm changing my blog's name. By August's end, this site will no longer be known as Anachronarchy, but instead as Arnold's Benediction. I've been considering changing the blog's name for several weeks now, mostly because Anachronarchy sounds kind of silly. Yes, I thought it was cool at first -- plus there were no other websites with that word in it -- but now it seems tacky. Plus, there's the problem of nobody knowing how to pronounce the word.
So I've gone with Arnold's Benediction because I guess you could say that this blog is my way of bestowing my personal blessing (and curses) on that which I see fit to criticize. Also, while I don't personally know anyone named Arnold, the title does sound like Benedict Arnold which I think makes sound catchy and is easier to remember.
(For those of you curious as to my opinions of Benedict Arnold, I think the significance of his defection from the US is greatly overplayed. He was an accomplished Major General with the Continental Army, but once he switched sides his contribution to the British war effort was minor. Despite a life of controversy, his family laid down roots in Canada and became landowners and settlers.)
The name changeover will take place on 31 August. And take note that the site's URL address will likely change as well. (If you can't find this site then I'm sure a Google search of "arnold's benediction blog" will turn it up.)
See ya later!

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 Real Deal -- Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones (2002)

  Welcome to another new segment I'm debuting today called “The Real Deal”, a series in which I look at movies that are even worse than people say. So to contrast with last week's defence of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, I'm going to spotlight the terribleness of its sequel, Attack of the Clones.

  Now just as I did with TPM, I'm going to preface this by listing all the things that I must concede about AOTC. For starters, there's less of Jar Jar Binks. That alone should earn a sigh of relief from Star Wars fans. Instead we're treated to Jango Fett, Boba Fett's slightly more competent father. Jango's pretty cool. He's got a cool character design, a couple cool action scenes, and he's got the cool voice of Temuera Morrison. And speaking of cool voices, this film has Christopher Lee as the mysterious Count Dooku. Too bad his character is underutilized. It's also a treat to see Ewan McGregor really getting into the role of Obi-Wan. Seeing the clone army being assembled for the first time is a sight to behold. Likewise, I think a small part of everyone's childhood dreams came true seeing dozens and dozens of Jedi knights in action all at once at the Geonosis arena scene. In short, there's enough here to keep Attack of the Clones from being the one of the worst movies ever.

  Nevertheless, it is easily the worst Star Wars film ever (if we're not counting the 1978 Holiday Special). I could talk about all the little things in Episode II that suck – the bumbling droid humour, Boba Fett being reduced to the status of clone, or the fact that Jango Fett really sucks when it comes to killing Padme – but no, we're going to talk about all the major problems behind this stinker.

  In stark contrast to TPM, AOTC throws practical effects completely out the window! Computer-generated effects are freakin' everywhere and as a result things look too plastic and weightless. And it looks terrible. The battle of Geonosis, the first time we see the clone army in action, is an eyesore. Saturday-morning-cartoonish looking CG clones and droids – seriously, they couldn't be bothered to make up just a handful of clone trooper outfits and put some actors in them? – clash in a nutmeg-sandstorm with bright blobs of energy bolts flashing all over the place. Even Yoda hasn't been spared this curse, having done away with the neat animatronics that brought him to life in TPM.

  One of the most noticeable problems of Attack of the Clones is that its main character, Anakin Skywalker... sucks. I tried thinking of one word that could sum up his faults, but so numerous were they that the word “sucks” was all I could think of. For starters, he is extremely whiny. He complains about stuff all the time: about why he's not a not a Jedi Knight yet, about how his master Obi-Wan is too harsh and is just holding him back, about how he needs to go to Tatooine and find his mommy, about how he wants the transport to land so he can pick up his love interest (instead of waiting just five minutes and possibly ending a war in the process), about how he wants to duel Count Dooku alone. Just shut up already! And all this is given the Hayden Christensen treatment with a high-pitched whine that also has a very wooden delivery to it. Though to be fair, he wasn't given much direction.

  Anakin's suckitude is really brought to bear in what is probably the worst romance I've ever seen in a movie. This romance between Anakin and Padme Amidala – the parents of Luke and Leia – has no chemistry whatsoever. Awkward, creepy Anakin comes off as some weirdo who's been spending the way too much time lusting over a pair of panties he stole from Padme a decade ago. Every rejection Padme initially makes towards his advances feels genuine. When she finally gives in and kisses him, it comes out of nowhere, as if she's kissing a dude who just ran over her dog with his car. It doesn't feel right, man! Actually, the truth is even worse. She still hooks up with the guy even after he admits to slaughtering a whole camp full of Tuskens, females, kids, and all. Padme sure knows how to pick 'em doesn't she?

  This horrible love affair is thanks in large part to the film's horrendous dialogue. Few lines in Attack of the Clones sound natural. For example, when Anakin confesses his aforementioned foray into mini genocide, Padme responds with, “to be angry is to be human.” Oh really!? He just slaughtered a whole village and her response is basically just, “Oh well. I don't blame you.” And let's not get started on Anakin's infamous sand diatribe. Most sentences sound very stiff. The language is strictly utilitarian, only serving to announce things that are happening.

  And that brings me to the biggest problem of them all: Attack of the Clones is extremely boring! There are twice as many long talking scenes as TPM, the plot is convoluted and dull, and the whole film is far longer than it has any right to be. Unlike TPM, AOTC has very few standout moments that are worth remembering. It all blends into a great big boring monstrosity.

  One time when I was about eleven years-old I was at a friend's house. This guy was a big Star Wars fan and he wanted me to watch his VHS copy of Episode II with him. Within the first half hour I was already on the other side of the room playing Hot Wheels. I think that says all you need to know about Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones. While it's not a horrendously bad movie, there are still much better things you could be doing with your time. Worst Star Wars ever.

Movie Review - Spider-Man: Homecoming

  It's rare to see a movie series rebooted just ten years after its inception. It's even rarer to see one rebooted a second time just five years later (four if you count last year's Captain America: Civil War)! I'm of course talking about Spider-Man: Homecoming, the now third incarnation we've seen of the friendly neighbourhood webhead.

  And it definitely shows. With all these reboots and retellings of Spider-Man tales they're all starting to feel very similar. Homecoming in particular feels very much like 2012's Amazing Spider-Man, just with a lighter tone that feels more like a comic book and less like a movie. There's no denying that the cinematic well of Spider-Man ideas is starting to run dry. Just look at how they've already run out of ideas for good titles; the titular homecoming only lasts a couple minutes and has hardly any significance to the film.

  So what did the powers that be at Marvel (6 screenwriters? Really?!) whip up for us this time? Fifteen year-old Peter Parker is an awkward, nerdy high school student in New York City, but is also the hero known as Spider-Man, seeing himself as Tony Stark's (AKA Iron Man's) protegee. But evil is afoot once Adrian Toomes and his gang of techies discover that leftover alien technology from the events of 2012's Avengers can be used to make superweapons. Peter must learn to balance his everyday problems with his activities as Spider-Man while taking on the blackhearted Vulture. While Homecoming isn't quite an origin story – and thank goodness because I can only bear to see Uncle Ben shot so many times – we do see Spider-Man's early development as a hero. He has to learn how to be a hero, how to fight, how to handle loss, how to approach situations, and, most critically, how to keep secrets.

  Not having Uncle Ben die changes how Spider-Man works as a movie. One one hand, it robs Peter of the depth that he had in the other movies. Ben isn't even mentioned in Homecoming (just barely hinted at), which brings up the question: why does Peter do what he does? But on the other hand, the absence of Ben and his death's consequences preserves the lighter tone of Homecoming. Probably the funniest Spidey movie yet, this film has a tone very similar to 2015's Ant-Man. So it's a tradeoff: we get more lighthearted fun at the expense of solemn maturity (relatively speaking; this is a superhero movie after all).

  Now for the actors. Tom Holland is pretty cool. He pulls off the whole Peter-Parker-as-a-teenager thing better than any other actor so far. Michael Keaton is a great villain as the Vulture and is surprisingly intimidating. It makes me wonder if this is supposed to be a sequel to 2014's Birdman... I really like the role Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark plays here, as a mentor – quasi-father-figure – to Peter. Homecoming also has a bunch of supporting characters. We've got Spider-Man's nerdy pal Ned, the showy Flash... umm... Trujillo?, Liz the love interest, dull, attractive Aunt May, and the misanthropic Michelle (AKA Daria). The side characters are all fun and humourous but they're not all that interesting or deeply developed.

  The action scenes are all decent, most them taking place in environments that we've not seen in Spider-Man movies before. It's interesting to see how Spidey takes on badguys in places without tall buildings like from high in the air or on a ferry. Spider-Man's costume has also been upgraded from previous films. Not only does it have a nice classic look to it but it's also got a ton of functionality built into it. I guess this makes up for the fact that this version of Peter doesn't seem to have spider-sense. My only complaint about the action is that it appears very CG-heavy. The other Spider-Man films were too, and while these computer-generated effects do look good it would be nice to finally see live-action Spidey action imbued with some visceral physicality.

  It seems as if the trend of each successive Spider-Man film is to be funnier and to have a progressively younger cast with less developed side characters. But when all's said and done, Spider-Man: Homecoming is still a flashy, fun film like a well-acted cartoon in live-action form. It may not be the best Spider-Man film ever made, but for superhero fans and spiderfans alike it's definitely worth a watch.

  Also, the end credits scene is savage.

Grade:  

In Defence of Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace (1999)

  Happy Saturday, folks. Today is the first of a new segment on Anachronarchy called In Defence of... This is a series of articles in which I come to the defence of movies that I think aren't quite as bad as everybody makes them out to be. For the series' inaugural airing we'll be looking at Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999).

  And before I start, let me make one thing clear: I don't think The Phantom Menace is a good movie. It has tons of things wrong with it and everybody's talked about it to death. Jar Jar is annoying and unfunny and only there to sell toys. Anakin is awkwardly written and just as awkwardly acted by Jake Lloyd. (This is the kid who grows up to become Darth Vader?) Anakin's connection to C-3PO is wholly pointless. There's too much exposition and long, boring scenes of talking. Which one of these people is supposed to be the main character? And what the hell is Samuel L. Jackson doing here?

These are all legitimate points, but in spite of them I still think Star Wars Episode I is an OK movie. While it may not be the best written or the best acted it is filled with a wonderful amount of imagination and is good for some mindless escapist entertainment.

  If nothing else, one has to acknowledge that this movie has some wonderful visual designs. The way the droid army looks and moves is impressive stuff. Whether it's the droidekas that fold up into balls to roll around or the vulture droid starfighters that can walk around on their wings, one can safely proclaim the idea of an army made up entirely of machines to be a good one. Likewise, the aliens of Star Wars look just as interesting and convincing as ever. This was when George Lucas still bothered with makeup and animatronics instead of just recklessly splurging CG effects all over the place as he did with Episodes II and III. The respectable amount of practical effects they stuck with on Episode I lends more believability to that movie's aliens and environments (that is until animatronic Yoda was replaced with crappy CG in TPM's rerelease).

  It's quite clear that The Phantom Menace was a sprawling production with tons of hard work put into it from the costumes and sets to the choreography and the excellent scoring by John Williams. By today's runaway blockbuster standards it's hard to believe that the film was made for only $115 million.

  While TPM doesn't have the best of plots, it certainly makes up for it in the action department. While not exactly having much to do with the plot directly, the pod race scene was a thrilling distraction. The final lightsaber duel with Darth Maul at the end is – in my opinion – the best in the whole series. That fight's combination of great speed, fine choreography, dramatic scoring, and ingenious pacing makes it real treat to watch over and over again. Even Jar Jar Binks, as obnoxious and despised as he is, was genuinely amusing during the battle scene in which he wreaks havok on the droids through his own sheer ineptitude.

  All these factors – combined with the compelling performances of Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor – make The Phantom Menace far from the unwatchable piece of garbage many people today proclaim it to be. As mentioned above, it has its problems but it is still a somewhat competently made film capable of entertaining.

  So why, then, do people call it trash? Could it be that since it was merely an OK movie and not a great movie that it was the victim of impossibly high expectations? Or is it that, since TPM was still two films removed from the original trilogy and by the end it didn't connect much to them, that the film just felt unnecessary once the end credits started rolling? Personally, I think the reason the Star Wars prequel trilogy is hated so much is because it focuses too much on setting up the original trilogy and not enough on telling compelling stories of its own.

  Speaking of which... tune in next week. You'll see.

Movie Review Repost -- The Lone Ranger (2013)

The season of summer blockbusters is upon us! Let's take a look back at a highly anticipated, big-budget one from a few years back, The Lone Ranger. I like western films and I was actually looking forward to this one. Unfortunately it turned out to be a real disappointment, with a lame hero, a bloated run time, and general nonsense. It ended up being one of the biggest box office bombs of the year thanks to its astoundingly high budget of approximately $260 million. While I now realize that it's OK for a western to take an occasional dive into the realm of over-the-top-ness, the fact remains that this movie is a catastrophe that should be remembered. So let's have a moment of silence for this film that could've been so awesome if its script was just tweaked a little bit.

  Two-and-a-half hours. Ugh. So for those of you who don't know, The Lone Ranger (2013) is pretty much a remake of The Legend of the Lone Ranger (1981) except with no plot to kidnap the president. We've had enough presidential action movies for one summer.

  It follows ex-Ranger John Reid and his Native American friend Tonto on their quest for revenge and justice against the guys who murdered their loved ones and are engineering a war to profit off of. It is a drawn-out story involving unoriginal plot lines and a title character who dates his brother Dan's widow just days after her husband's death. What a nice guy. In fact for most of the movie the Lone Ranger (Armie Hammer) is kind of a weenie. He is largely overshadowed by his eccentric sidekick Tonto played by Johnny Depp who unfortunately is about as Native as me. For villains we have Butch Cavendish, the cannibalistic murderer who looks a lot like Captain Barbossa (this film was made by the same guys who did POTC, you know). Our other villain is railroad tycoon Latham Cole (AKA Lord Bosscrime).

  One of the things you'll notice rather quickly about this film is that the studios involved tried to make it appropriate for children but also appealing to adults. This makes the film into a clumsy combination of sometimes dumb jokes (including poop jokes) and surprisingly graphic violence for a Disney film. The whole movie is told through flashbacks by Tonto (who of course can recall in great detail events that he was not present to witness), and this only serves to both pad out the already long run time and to make the film more child-friendly. Just like with Pirates of the Caribbean, the action scenes are terrifically over-the-top spectacles: the kind where people are thrown and tossed around like rag dolls and yet never seem to break any bones. These kinds of overblown action scenes seem ill-suited to the western genre which is normally more grounded in reality. Nevertheless one thing that this movie does extremely well is the setting. The highly-detailed sets and the panoramic longshots look amazing.

  Sadly, Lone Ranger drops the ball on so many occasions. Characters will inexplicably become stupid for the sake of plot convenience, while other characters will suddenly remember how to speak a second language halfway through a scene! The running gag of people not understanding the mask was not funny at all. The one-legged prostitute chick was pointless; she has about four minutes of screen time and in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter much. Additionally there are so many things that don't make any sense whatsoever. Like how did Tonto get so good a making bullets? How can a horse pull a buried person out of the ground by only that person's teeth? Why was a stationary ceremonial train full of passengers? Why does Cole allow Cavendish to walk around out in the open even after showing his wanted poster to everybody? Does Cole really think the railroad board members are just going to let him get away with his illegal takeover of the company? Why was that part even necessary? I'd think that by this stage in the movie the audience is already pretty sure that he's a bad guy.

  In short, the Lone Ranger is an overblown, over-hyped, over-budgeted mess of a western that tries appealing to too many people at once. It's comparable to POTC; it isn't as needlessly complicated but it somehow manages to have the same run time. Really the only people who I can recommend this film for is western fans – beggars can't be choosers, right? – and Johnny Depp fans. This movie should've been called The Adventures of Tonto and his Weenie Sidekick, the Lone Ranger.

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

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.