Film Review: The Northman

The Northman < Conan the Barbarian < The Green Knight < Gladiator

But still not bad.

Look, I HATED Eggers’ The Witch which was ponderously boring, not at all frightening as it was billed, just downright silly at times, and impossible to take seriously. So when The Lighthouse was released I skipped on viewing despite all the accolades and awestruck reviews.

But a Viking epic of revenge that looked like it had high production values and took its content seriously without camp or tongue in cheek? I’m in.

What you get is pretty much that…Eggers knows how to craft an image and a feeling, I’ll give him that. Still have issues with fake snow though…Yes, I get that real snowflakes won’t stay and are very small, but do the fake ones really need to be like 1/2” in circumference and look like fuzzy plastic??

So the atmosphere throughout the film is excellent. We get the dirt and blood and sweat that such a film needs. Everyone is filthy (well, except the female characters). Aleksander Skarsgard is good in his role as the Northman himself. A lithe barbarian he is here. Strong but not overly bulky. Young and at the peak of male power but having suffered enough to be vulnerable to both weapon and word. Anna Taylor-Joy as the eventual female lead fills the role of lover-Valkyrie-mother with skill and is the character most investable from the audience’s perspective.

And that perhaps is one of the bigger shortcomings of the film.

Where with Conan the Barbarian you see the boy’s family killed and Conan enslaved, having to kill others just to survive or to fend off monsters or to get revenge. Here? While perhaps more accurate in terms of just what an outcast may have to do in order to survive, Skarsgard as the Northman in what is the best sequence of the film is seen (without background for conveying actual motivation) attacking a village/outpost and proceeding to slaughter everyone in sight along with his rampaging companions who then set up to carry off all the women, children, and surviving men into slavery themselves. It is only when he hears the name of his uncle uttered in mention of now being outcast to Iceland is there a spark of something beyond unadulterated anger and brutality and accompanies the cutting of his hair to a more “civilized” and less threatening length. Without context or meaning, observing the protagonist laying waste to a village does not endear him to the viewer.

This isn’t my biggest quibble however…That comes in the form of feeling like we’ve seen this all before. The killing of the Northman’s father including his beheading in a forest while he watches from the side is pulled from the aforementioned Conan, the use of nom-de-guerre “The Northman” elicits Gladiator, the “big reveal” in the film is cribbed directly from Hamlet, and even the final battle (of course, we can’t have a film without a culminating battle between “good” and “evil”!!) at the base of a fiery volcano is a marginally better version of the lightsaber duel present in Revenge of the Sith complete with lava that isn’t actually hot.

The Northman was a film I hoped so much more for…it isn’t often that I will go out and see a film in a theater but this one seemed like it might be worth it. Maybe the social media algorithms are too good and convinced me it would warrant my attention. Its not that its bad…it isn’t…it looks good and has sequences that are downright excellent—the panning shot that follows the Northman through the village he so efficiently dispatches is downright brilliant—its just that the film does not add up to more than the sum of its parts…and so many of its parts, while nice to look at, have been done before.

Film Review: Those Who Wish Me Dead

Well, we all have our substandard work, don’t we?

I have greatly enjoyed all of Taylor Sheridan’s previous writing and directing work which includes the TV Series Yellowstone, and the films Wind River, Sicario, Sicario: Day of the Soldado, and Hell or High Water. So when I saw that he was directing this work which had a similar theme to his other work—Neo-Western and dealing with issues of the American West (here being the fire prone areas of the Rocky Mountains) and mixing it with brute criminal behavior that he has previously portrayed so well…I had high hopes.

Unfortunately, saddled with Angelie Jolie who is completely out of her element here and a terrible script (at least partially Sheridan’s own fault), this is a grossly underwhelming film.

Jolie, who has always looked like she is wearing a wig to me, is supposed to be a female smokejumper extraordinaire here but is waifish in her build, runs like toddler, and exhibits exactly zero physical strength in the role. She is also just a straight up terrible actress here and has a completely stilted chemistry (or lack thereof) with the cast. She has been shoehorned into this role by someone and it shows.

The story itself would have let anyone down, so its not all Jolie’s fault. So little is explained of any of the plot or characters that the viewer has no idea of anyone’s real motivation. The killer’s sent after a small boy who may have some accounting info that implicates someone, or some organization are directed by a nameless governmental “baddie” played by Tyler Perry (who shoehorned himself in here as one of the producers). What the info is? What have these bad people done? No one knows. Jolie has some sort of exgirlfriend relationship with Joe Bernthal’s character (the only one even adequate in their role) but that is glossed over and buried with a single sentence. Lightning strikes with an accuracy that makes you think it has it out for Jolie’s character—first striking her fire tower and then, literally, chasing her down as she crosses a field.

The film ends predictably and without any real resolution or information regarding what just happened. Which is kinda the feeling a viewer comes away with? What did I just watch and why did I bother?

If HBO Max, where this film was put on the same day it appeared in theaters due to the relationship between HBO and Warner Bros., is simply going to be a dumping ground for movies that should have been canned or gone “straight to streaming” as they might say…count me out of paying for it. Skip it and watch Hell or High Water again…

Film Review: The Battle of Algiers

Truly a brilliant film. Not in terms of acting or filmmaking but in terms of content that remains stunningly relevant to this day some 60 years later.

Themes here include pacification of urban populations, use of torture on prisoners possessing information that may save lives, colonial powers in decline, tactical victories vs. strategic wins, guerilla warfare and on and on and on.

Opening with the French torture of a Muslim prisoner in Algiers toward the end of France’s colonial rule the film depicts both sides with a clear gaze. Neither is above reproach. France’s efforts to hang on to power over a population that largely doesn’t want them anymore is great “decline and fall” fodder…even containing a reference to France’s recent defeat in Indochina fresh on their lips and with lessons supposedly learned places the characters firmly in the most realistic of circumstances. French leaders and soldiers are given an impossible task and attempt in the best way possible enact their orders. Facing as we well know a largely invisible enemy disappearing within the general populace and acting in a way that does not spare fellow citizens puts the French in a no-win situation…a familiar spot for Americans in the 21st century.

The Muslim fighters are intelligent, organized, brave and patriotic but themselves not above committing atrocities. They fight with what they have…disguising themselves as women, hiding weapons is baskets, assassinating targets with bullets in the back of the head.

There is no honor among these parties…each recognize that there is no winner, only survivors. The film plays this out with all parties coming away scarred if they come away at all.

Its also a great primer on the North African Muslim culture. Seeing the Casbahs, drug usage, prostitution and so on comingled with the calls to prayer, devout followers of the faith and enmasked women gives one a good sense of the mix of European and Middle Eastern influences present in the region. The conflict between European interlopers and actual residents less than 10 years after the end of WWII (this is the same area English and German and American and Italian tanks and planes rampaged across scarcely a decade earlier) is disconcerting to me…history and the winds of change move faster than one ever can imagine at times.

But here we are some 60 years later and I’m imagining the film with be just as relevant at its 100 year mark. Maybe Americans won’t be the ones using this film as a primer for their military forces as a learning exercise as we have been in recent years. One can only hope.

Film Review: Da 5 Bloods

Been a loooooong time since I wrote anything here but what the hell…

Given where we are in the country and the hype surrounding the release of this film I felt I should see it when it “opened” which was last Friday 6/12. Filmed in early ‘19 and written originally back in ‘13 it does not have nearly the connections to current events that may critics try and draw. That said, given the ongoing issues regarding the BLM movement and the deaths of African Americans that have driven the aforementioned, it is nothing, if not timely.

First—The criminally under utilized and under appreciated Delroy Lindo dominates the film. No one else comes close. His conflicted Vietnam Vet with an affinity for Trump and MAGA hats is phenomenal. Its his film and his character of Paul is the prism through which we see the events including the death of the larger group’s leader, Norman, who is seen only in retrospect. Lindo’s Paul is more nuanced that critics give voice to. His criticisms of immigrants who take jobs from African Americans and his love of Trump for telling things like it is strikes a chord of truth in how some people of color view the President. Lee won’t see things in that manner but does little here to dissuade the viewer from agreeing with Paul’s strong beliefs. There is no counter to those jobs being taken away or the bluntness of the President’s language—conversely the course language, past relations with whores, children out of wedlock, heavy drinking, male bonding, etc. used here only serves to back the view that Trump talks and walks like a run of the mill American male of all colors and not the pantywaisted waif that Lee’s liberal leanings would have you want.

Second—The film is uneven. It has gigantic gaps in logic and emotion. Primary example? When Paul leaves the rest of “Da Bloods” behind to wander off into the jungle he does so with barely a blink or a tear from his son who has accompanied the group to this point. Nary a mention is made of his absence and none of his end. Its a thread that diverges completely from the rest of the film and it being self contained without impact or impression on the rest of the characters is a major fault. We return to it in the end by means of a previously written letter by Paul which is read by his son David but you sit and ask “Yeah, great, you’re sad now but you didn’t do anything to follow your father when he was at his weakest or even look back? How am I to have sympathy for you?”

Third—it does come off a bit like a Spike Lee film in the guise of Tarantino production. Both have operated in similar veins for years with Lee probly finding such comparisons insulting…but there it is. From the color palates, to the colorful language, the pop culture references, the work with people of color…they are more similar than they are different at this point, particularly since Lee has gone more mainstream vs. his early days of She’s Gotta Have It and School Daze which were decidedly uncommercial works. Here I mention the connection simply because some of the pop culture references are forced—Flight of the Valkyries as the boat goes up river? This is so much the case that the NYT came out with a “pop culture guide to Da 5 Bloods” today in order to key viewers in on all the references Lee makes. This isn’t additive. Its references for references sake…a “how cool do I look that I can include this?” moment. Tarantino does it and here so does Lee.

So what’s the end result? A largely enjoyable film that has Lindo’s performance as its centerpoint but is NOT the cultural voice on the issues of racism, class warfare, BLM or similar that critics wish to portray. Nor is it a real look at the African American experience in Vietnam that others have pushed out. Too little of the film deals with the war at all keeping enemies nameless and faceless and barely mentioned. Lee pays lipservice to the statistical inequities of more African Americans fighting and dying (on a % basis) than whites in Vietnam but that is glossed over in a one sentence description and not delved into further. This is a commercial film despite all its critical trappings—you get the “happy” ending, you get the resolution, the characters get the gold (literally), the good guys win, the bad guys lose, the violence is muted, people dance through clubs in Saigon, etc. Its enjoyable but does it speak to our real problems in a reasoned and impactful way? No. Watch it for Lindo. Watch it again for Lindo. Go back and watch Clockers for Lindo. Then get on with it.

Film Review: They Shall Not Grow Old

If this film is showing anywhere near you at this point in time you must go see it.

I included the trailer here but the trailer really does it no justice in terms of its visual impact.

I have never, until seeing this film, heard an entire audience audibly gasp at a film and its presentation as they did here. I hate 3D films. It was a gimmick that grew in popularity a few years ago largely for kids films and other popcorn material and has largely begun to fade away thankfully. I also don’t like the colorization of old black and white films. The colors are always off—particularly skin tones…and so I had reservations here.

Trust me…go see it in the manner Peter Jackson (he of Lord of the Rings fame) intended and see a 3D version (you will find some theaters showing 2D versions). The work done by Jackson and his staff of New Zealand artists in restoring and enhancing the 100 year old film is nothing short of a miracle. Also stay past the credits to see a 1/2 hour addition to the film that shows some of the painstaking work they went through to do the restoration. You will be amazed at the detail and improvements (not alterations) they were able to make.

So to the film itself. Its a documentary regarding WWI. It doesn’t cover the whole war and in fact only covers a “generalized” group of British men from their time joining up through their return to Britain after the war. Its real footage of the war is impressive enough on its own but its not the draw. The draw is the looks in the eyes of the boys (for the 14-17 year olds that often largely populated these armies are just boys) doing the fighting. Having never seen a film camera before they don’t understand that they can move while being filmed (vs. static cameras) and so stare at the film camera allowing you to see into I dare say their souls.

At moments heartbreaking in scenes of piles of broken and torn boys to images of disgust at rats feeding on the corpses of horses and humans to moments of humor and play in the trenches the film lays bare many of the horrors of war while also reflecting why many members who serve look back at such times with fondness longing for the close relationships that are only developed under fire.

Go see it. Its in limited release and not everywhere but where its showing the theaters are busy due to word of mouth. It won’t be around long in this format and won’t be nearly as impressive at home. You owe it to yourself to see it in this format. You will be awed at what Jackson has achieved.

Film Review: The Way Back

Well…if I’m being political…there certainly is a reason this film has gone unnoticed.

You couldn’t find a more anti-communist film in today’s Hollywood. From beginning to end the Communist system and officials are endlessly demonized—and appropriately so. While part of Russia was busy trying to beat back Hitler, Stalin was also busy rounding up hundreds of thousands and shipping them off to Siberia where many would die simply for being an intellectual or merely suspected of having an opinion outside the Communist party line.

Over and over the film hammers home the removal of individual freedom in the Russian system. Over and over you are struck with the cruelty of the Communist system and its supporters.

The film itself was directed by a top notch filmmaker in Peter Weir (Gallipoli, Year of Living Dangerously, Dead Poets Society, Witness, Truman Show, Master and Commander: Far Side of the World, etc.) and it has A-list actors in Ed Harris, Colin Farrell and Jim Sturgess. All do solid work in their roles as Polish and Russian escapees from a Siberian gulag. Their foot based journey over 4000 km from Siberia to India is covered in detail taking them from snowy forests in Russia to caves and deserts of Mongolia. Never leaving their side though is the horror of being returned to the Communist system…and its that fear, less than that of the harsh prison that hangs over everyone. A system that turns wife against husband, brother against brother…one that strips individuals of all free will that is the bigger horror than any environmental danger.

This one likely goes on all “young conservatives” list of films to watch from the past 10 years. Its faults, and it has a few, is its length (at over two hours you FEEL the length of their journey) and externalization of danger as almost all conflict is vs. nature itself or vs. the Communist system. There is no person or object against which the characters really struggle…they just move from one poor environmental condition to the next, which makes for some pretty scenes on film but not overly thrilling.

Worth a watch. Might want to sit Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez down for a watch as well…