Film Review: ENEMY AT THE GATES (2001)

Director: Jean-Jacques Annaud
Writers: Jean-Jacques Annaud, Alain Godard
Running time: 131 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Drama/History/Thriller
UK Release date: 16^th March 2001

Watched on Sky+ Sunday 4^th August 2013.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE UNINTENTIONAL SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I saw this film quite a few years ago but really couldn’t remember much about it and so decided to give it another viewing when it came up in the listings recently. The first thing that struck me is that it is long; very very long. So having got comfortable with a good supply of snacks and drinks, I settled down for the ordeal. As it transpired, it wasn’t as painful an experience as I had expected, but it was still too long. Here’s a very brief summary before I give you my thoughts.

When shepherd Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law) is drafted into the Soviet Army in 1942, he finds himself in the front line facing the Nazi’s at Stalingrad. Finding himself trapped after a charge on enemy lines he uses great marksmanship skills to save both himself and Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes), a political officer. Danilov uses Zaitsev as an example to inspire the people and as a result he becomes quite famous. He is promoted to the sniper division by the Commander of the defending forces, Nikita Khrushchev (Bob Hoskins) and all his kills are made public. This soon comes to the attention of the Germans and they bring in expert sniper, Major König (Ed Harris) to deal with Zaitsev. Thus begins a game of cat-and-mouse as the pair face off amongst the ruins of the city. Enter the love interest, Tania Chernova (Rachel Weisz), who Danilov falls in love with but who would like to be with Zaitsev. Add to this a boy, Sacha Filipov (Gabriel Thomson), who Danilov uses to get information about the whereabouts of König and that’s about all I can say. Oh, and there’s a brief appearance from Ron Perlman as Koulikov, a Russian sniper who had worked with König before the war.

A film with some great set piece battle scenes involving hundreds of extras; it does look quite epic in places. I would have liked to have seen it on the big screen, I’m sure it was quite impressive. The music was pretty good; mainly relying on great sweeping themes throughout it did put me in mind of another epic war film set in Russia. All the performances were very good with Jude Law, Rachel Weisz and Ed Harris standing out for me. It was one of those films that was good, with ambitions of being great but never quite getting there. Sadly I felt that the love triangle got in the way, a bit, of a decent war film. I say ‘sadly’ because I thought Rachel Weisz was particularly good in this one. Over all though, I found it a bit too long but still quit a decent watch.

SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 7.3/10.

IMDb Score: 7.5/10 (based on 122,529 votes when this review was written).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0215750/

MetaScore: 53/100: (Based on 33 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 54/100 (based on 137 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 79/100 (based on 221,585 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/enemy_at_the_gates/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Trailer:

Film Review: THE FOUNTAIN (2006)

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writers: Darren Aronofsky (Screenplay/Story), Ari Handel, (Story)
Running time: 92 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 15

Genre: Drama/Romance/Sci-Fi
USA Release date: 26^th January 2007

Watched on DVD Saturday 29^th September 2012.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

Having a look around the internet it looks like this film has divided opinion all over the place. I have to say I liked it; beautifully made with an astonishing arc of a story that stretches hundreds of years and billions of miles. Aronofsky has made some great films in recent years; ‘The Wrestler’ and ‘Black Swan’ to name but two; and I find his work always challenging to watch. He doesn’t treat the audience like idiots and I appreciate that; so few are prepared to take that risk these days. Hopefully it’s a sign that things may be on the change. But I digress, here’s a very brief summary before I give you my thoughts.

We begin with Tomas, a Spanish Conquistador in the 16^th Century searching for a Mayan temple that holds the Tree of Life. Then we have a research Scientist; Tommy Creo searching for a cure for the brain tumour his wife Izzi is suffering from. Then there’s an astronaut, Tom, in the far future who is travelling in a clear bubble that contains a dying tree. He is approaching his destination, a nebula that could release him from the long life he has suffered. All these stories are interlinked with the backbone of the plot being that of Tommy and Izzi. It seems that a story written by Izzi about a Spanish Queen and the soldier she sent to search for the Tree of Life needs an ending… I will leave it there or the Spoiler Police (Aronofsky Division) will be confusing me with even more daring and complex plots.

Beautifully shot with some stunning images. I wasn’t sure about the muted tones used at first but as the film went on it grew on me. The musical score by Clint Mansell was both beautiful and inspired; I will be tracking it down. The performances of the two central characters; Hugh Jackman as Tomas / Tommy / Tom Creo and Rachel Weisz as Isabel / Izzi Creo were stunning; Aronofsky certainly knows how to get a performance and they didn’t let him down. I also have to give honourable mentions to; Ellen Burstyn as Dr. Lillian Guzetti, Mark Margolis as Father Avila, Stephen McHattie as Grand Inquisitor Silecio and Fernando Hernandez as Lord of Xibalba.

I have to admit this is the second time I’ve seen this one and it’s one of those that gets better each time you see it. There are so many nuances and plot devices that it can be quite a hard one to get a handle on first time around. That’s probably one of the reasons it has divided opinion so much. The three threads of the story seem so remote at first but as you watch it all gradually pulls together. For me it is just the right length, any longer and it might have become a little tedious. I know there are many out there that didn’t like if first time around; to you I say; give it another chance… try to watch it with an open mind. It is slow-paced deliberately to allow the audience time to assimilate the story. If you’re watching it for the first time on my recommendation, then be prepared to give it a second viewing; you may not get it all first time around.

SteelMonster’s verdict: HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

My score: 8.1/10

IMDb Score: 7.3/10 (based on 119,092 votes at the time of going to press).
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0414993/

MetaScore: 51/100: (Based on 36 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Tomatometer’ Score: 51/100 (based on 194 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes ‘Audience’ Score: 73/100 ‘Liked It’ (based on 234,155 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fountain/

If you’re crazy enough… You can find me on Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/andy.steel3

FAVOURITE QUOTES:
[first title card]: Therefore, the Lord God banished Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden and placed a flaming sword to protect the tree of life. - Genesis 3:24

Tom Creo: What are you doing here?
Izzi: Take a walk with me.
Tom Creo: I have too much work.
Izzi: It's the first snow, we always...
Tom Creo: [interrupting] They're waiting on me.
Izzi: Come on Tommy...
Tom Creo: Please, Izzi!
[softens]
Tom Creo: I'm sorry. I am.
[Izzi walks out]
Tom Creo: I'll see you tonight, OK?

Isabel: Kneel, Conquistador.
[Tomas kneels before her]
Isabel: Let in the morning light.
[the doors are opened; light floods into the hall]
Isabel: The beast runs amok in my kingdom. He has isolated me, and now he is sharpening his talons for one more fateful push. But salvation lies in the jungles of New Spain. Will you deliver Spain from bondage?

Tom Creo: Death is a disease, it's like any other. And there's a cure. A cure - and I will find it.

Tom Creo: There you are.
Izzi: Hey, what are you doing here?
Tom Creo: Babe we have a
[inaudible]
Tom Creo: at three.
Izzi: This is an actual Mayan book. It explains the Creation myth. You see that's first father. He's the very first human.
Tom Creo: Hum. Is he dead?
Izzi: He sacrificed himself to make the world.
[pause]
Izzi: That's the tree of life bursting out of his stomach.
Tom Creo: Hey come.
Izzi: Listen. His body became the trees' roots. They spread and formed the earth. His soul became the branches rising up forming the sky. All the remained is first father's head. His children hung in the heavens creating Xibalba.
Tom Creo: Xibalba. The star, eh,
[corrects himself]
Tom Creo: nebula
Izzi: So what do you think?
Izzi: About?
Izzi: That idea. Death as an act of creation.
Tom Creo: [looks away, withdrawing] I'll pull out the car and meet you out front.

[last lines]
Tom Creo: I finished it.
Izzi: Is everything all right?
Tom Creo: Yes. Everything's all right.

LINKS:
(Note: All were working at the time of going to press)
Official Site: http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/thefountain/flashsite/index.html
Trailer:

Film Review: THE LOVELY BONES (2009) - Revisited

Director: Peter Jackson
Running time: 135 mins (approx)
Certification (UK): 12A

UK Release date: 19th February 2010

Watched on DVD Wednesday 24th November 2010.

PLEASE NOTE: THERE MAY BE SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW.

I have now read the book by Alice Sebold, with the same title, on which this film is based, and so I thought I’d give it a second viewing. In my first review I looked at the film as a stand-alone piece of work, now, having read the book, will I see it differently? Here’s a brief summary first before I give you my thoughts (summary haters please wait in the ‘in-between’ while I write the next paragraph… you can re-join the group afterwards).

NOTE: This is as depicted in the film:
Susie Salmon was fourteen when she was murdered on December 6th 1973; she has never been kissed and will never grow up. Her body is never found, but her consciousness goes to a place known as ‘the in-between’, where she watches as her family try to come to terms with her loss and also try to discover what happened to her. Her father, Jack, becomes so obsessed with finding out what happened to his daughter that he ends up in hospital having stalked a man into a field only to be beaten up for his trouble. Her mother, Abigail, cannot face it all and has to take some time away from the family. Abigail’s alcoholic mother, Grandma Lynn, comes to stay while she’s away. Her sister, Lindsey, frustrated with the whole situation, focuses her attention on a neighbour, George Harvey, who she is convinced has something to do with Susie’s disappearance. Through it all, Susie watches and tries to steer them in the right direction so that they can move on, and so can she. It’s very difficult to summarise the plot without giving too much away, so I’ll leave it there, I think I told you enough to know what the film is about.

It’s a beautiful film to look at, very clear images and some wonderful production. The time period the film was set was, for me, brought across perfectly, I’m only a few years younger than Susie would have been, and I remember the early 1970’s quite well. I thought the performance from Saoirse Ronan as Susie Salmon was quite brilliant, she won several nominations and a few awards for the part. I also thought that Stanley Tucci as the creepy neighbour, George Harvey, was also excellent. Decent performances from Mark Wahlberg as Jack Salmon, Rachel Weisz as Abigail Salmon, Susan Sarandon was woefully underused (IMO) as Grandma Lynn and Rose McIver as Lindsey Salmon.

There has been a lot of discussion about the depiction of ‘the in-between’. Personally, I didn’t have a problem with it; I guess whenever you adapt a book the picture in the reader’s head will seldom match the vision of the director. Now, having read the book I find there are a lot of differences between the book and the film. Some of the changes make the film more coherent, but the book was already out there as a body of work a long time before the film. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good effort by Peter Jackson et al, but I think I’m always going to prefer the book.

But going back to the film, I found it a little too long, but for the first hour it was totally engrossing. The visuals are stunning and there are a couple of great performances. I guess if you haven’t read the book that I can recommend it to you, it’s worth seeing. Now the tough one, if you have read, and loved, the book then maybe don’t see this adaptation… but if you’re feeling brave... Oh, and in case you’re interested, last time I scored it 7.1/10.

My score: 6.4/10

LINKS:
IMDb Page: http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/
Official Site: http://www.lovelybones.com/#home
Trailer: http://uk.imdb.com/rg/VIDEO_PLAY/LINK/video/imdb/vi2521171225/