Reach for the sky quick review

Reach for the sky is the story of Douglas Bader, a double leg amputee fighter ace in the RAF and national hero to Great Britain. When watching the film you instantly admire his character and the antics he pulls off, mainly because he tells “Jerry” where to “stick it” and his enthusiastic “can-do” attitude he has to every situation. He’s courageous, daring, determined and competitive; these plus sides lead to a huge downside resulting in a plane crash which takes both his legs. None the less he carries on his life with as much enthusiasm when he was able bodied.

My favourite quotations from him are (when talking to a nurse)

Nurse: I wouldn’t marry you if you were the last man on earth

Douglas:  you wouldn’t get a chance; you’ll be killed in the rush!

And

“You wait ‘til I get my tin legs, I’ll show you!”

And when talking to a German officer

German officer:  you must stand to attention when addressing a German officer!

Douglas: When I need your manners I’ll ask you, until then shut up!

The film is bombarded (see what I did there, bombarded, airplane ace...) with British patriotism, there are scenes where the national anthem is played and people stop and listen to it and salute, the only drink people ask for is tea, and RAF symbols are everywhere. The Germans are stereotypically presented too. They’re: abrupt, loud and aggressive. In fact the only sort of civilisation shown by the Germans is when Bader is captured and they ask for a replacement leg because one was lost when he bailed. But apart from that, this film is an amazing morale booster to Britain, even with no legs Bader was able to hold off the Germans. He could be considered to be a human metaphor, down, but still able to fight. This film is perfect for my research project, although looking at “The Battle of Britain” may be of some use. It may be better than this film in terms of what I’m looking for.

Battle of the Bulge! (A Quick review)

This film is the perfect example for your average sort of war film produced by Hollywood. And also this is the classic counter argument to the German made Das Boot, in this film, the Germans shoot defenceless allied prisoners and defenceless civilians, stuck up German officers are everywhere, and plucky Americans are getting the better of the Germans at nearly every turn.

The film is also good for facts, yes the Germans were running out of fuel very rapidly and yes they were killing defenceless people. If youre the sort of film viewer that gets a thrill out of finding contunity errors... this film is a GOLDMINE! I noticed 3 just watching it!

1)      1)the Germans were using repainted T-34 tanks (used by the Russians) as king tiger tanks

2)    2)  the Americans were using M24 Chaffee tanks up against these fake king tigers, a light recon tank up against a 70 ton heavy tank... I think not Hollywood!

3)      3)Theres a scene where Americans place white explosive on the underside of a German tank and in the next shot the explosives are not there

It’s plain to see that I have too much time on my hands in these summer holidays... hmmmmm

But apart from that, this film will do in terms of my research project. It shows the Americans side to the war. Now to move onto the British side!

Das Boot... My thoughts (a quick review to keep Mrs Wray happy)

First of all, this movie is so damn long; 4 hours of sweaty, beardy Germans trapped under the sea in their little submarine with no escape... breaking the film down like that makes it seem extremely homo-erotic, thats not the sort of film I would usually go for I swear! This is my focus film for my war film research project and I began watching the film with the pre-judgment of all the characters being Nazi raving Hitler kiss-asses right down to the core. But in matter of fact the submariners are just your average sort of people like you and me (not taking into account the massive balls these guys have to live under sea) this is the appeal and mainly the point of the film, because it is German made with a German cast and a German director, It makes you realise that the regular German servicemen were in fact human beings too, however much western film shows their murderous side.

 This is exactly the film to argue my case in point; because the Germans had near to no money by the end of the war the allied countries took the opportunity to show all Germans as being an uptight anti Semitist nation, which they were not. It is a very well directed film as well as very well performed film, not bad considering I have never seen any of the actors in it before! They must have been Germanys finest because there wasn’t a single piece of bad acting at all. When the pressure was on the submarine the pressure was on you and a sense claustrophobia lay present throughout.  A very intense piece of cinema, but I would not recommend it due to its length, I had to take 2 breaks during this! 2! 

City of God Review

For my foreign language film review I chose City of God directed by Fernando Meirelles and co-directed Katia Lund. A true story adapted from the book of the same name.

City of God is defined by Wikipedia to be in the “Crime film” genre. I do not agree with this view however. Yes it has heavy crime aspects to it throughout what with all the gang wars and drug selling, but for me it was more of a coming of age film for the main character, (and narrator) Rocket. He strives to lose his virginity and have a successful life before it gets abruptly terminated in the volatile slums and suburbs of Rio de Janeiro. He finds it hard to fit in as a “hood” (or gang member to you and me) but realises criminal activity is the only way out of the slums. On first impressions you’re drawn to the side of the young and poor Rocket growing up in the slums. His brother and his gang hold up a gas cylinder transporter for the cash and free gas, the money found in the truck is given to Rocket by his brother and he is told to run home, the locals then take as many gas cylinders as they can before the police turn up. You see a community coming together to steal from the rich and give to the poor in what is like a modern day robin hood scenario, but then the storyline takes a darker turn, delving into murder, drugs and betrayal.

 You quickly learn, like Rocket, that most problems are created and solved by the use of firearms, and due to the close-ups on pretty much everything you feel like you should be ducking and weaving whenever any bullet leaves any barrel. The way the cinematography and editing has been mixed together to create fast paced action and the sense of claustrophobia that only the slums of a developing city could provide, really gives this film a unique character. The first person shots put you in the scene as if you’re in the action with the characters; at times it reminded me of Spielberg’s work during Saving Private Ryan, putting you in the action by use of the first person perspective.

 I liked the way that throughout the film it slips in and out of the main story to quickly tell you the backgrounds of the main characters that are about to affect the scene. These such branches of story line go off at such a descriptive tangent that you can easily understand why the characters would make the decisions that they do, this I think made the film more accessible to the audience just by clearing things up. And I also like that the whole film circles back around to the opening sequence at the start of the film from a “Matrix” style camera rotation circling round Rocket from the 80’s to the 60’s.

At the Academy Awards it was nominated for: best director, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography and best film editing. It won best editing at the BAFTA’s. And it's easy to see why it has been noticed by such critical acclaim. The film is very down to earth and shows the real side of Rio. There’s a quote from Rocket that sums this up perfectly, “For the powerful, our problems didn’t matter. We were far too removed from the picture postcard image of Rio de Janeiro.”

If I had to give this film a flaw is that the director decided it would be fun for the audience to be told about other “amazing” films that he made, in the introduction... just to gloat. But other than that it’s a great film and I would definitely recommend it if somebody asked me for a foreign film to watch, if they were aged over 18 of course.

Inception... it's rather good I reckon... although...

I was watching Inception the other day and I can really see why there was so much rave and hype about it. (unlike Avatar that film was such a waste of money for a predictable story line and some blue arseholes thinking they were amazing up in their eco-houses... might as well have watched the Smurfs instead of that film) The cinematography is exceptional and the soundtrack iconic. BUT... if I had to punch holes in it, it would be this. Nothing to do with the story, that was super imaginative and I loved it. Nothing to do with actors, even though I do think they did employ Leonardo DiCaprio as a back up plan, relying on him to sell the film if it all went wrong. It's actually to do with the little machine thing that joins them all together when they're in the dreams... they're using the same needles over and over again! HIV must be real problem for people in his line of work. Good luck fighting a "militarised mind" DiCaprio when your own immune system is eating you! I could be wrong about this however, there may be a line in the film that does cover this that iv'e missed but I wouldn't mind some answers ;P

New Post!

This is an absolute test run!