skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Oddly enough, one of the first things you consider while watching The Great Escape has nothing to do with the movie itself. It's most likely because there are so few flaws in the film, but as it unfolds, you actually start think of other overblown, less successful war movies. We all know these - the ones that rely on their subject matter alone for their acclaim, instead of actual filmmaking merit. In many cases, they're successful films, but nowhere near as good as the masses claim. The Great Escape outshines them all for two primary reasons:
First, it doesn't take itself too seriously. Yes, there's a story, and yes, it's based on actual events, but neither the cast nor the crew felt the need to over-dramatize anything. We see the prisoners working feverishly to accomplish their tasks, suffering setbacks along the way, but we also see our fair share of comic relief to make it all more relatable. It's a war movie, but it's also great fun - which sets it apart from most of its other genre counterparts.
Secondly, as an ensemble piece, it treats war as it's meant to be treated - a team affair, rather than a chance for stars to shine. Though Steve McQueen gets top billing as Virgil Hilts, he doesn't factor into the story any more than James Garner, or Richard Attenborough do in their roles. Director John Sturges gives us a group of successful performances in not very demanding roles. It's one of the film's biggest successes, and it mirrors the workmanlike nature of the story. (If any one of them can be called a "star" here, it's Charles Bronson as claustrophobic tunnel king Danny Velinski.)
Don't be put off by the nearly-three-hour run time; The Great Escape will fly right by. It's one of the best war movies you'll ever see, and certainly a film that demands repeat viewing.
3 stars out of 4
There are three things you need to know about Star Trek - it's big, it's exciting and, most importantly, it's a lot of fun. Let's face it, it's the first enjoyable summer popcorn flick of 2009 (sorry, Wolverine). More importantly, it successfully reboots a long stagnant franchise for a new generation (pardon the pun). You have to ask: could anyone have engineered this rebirth as successfully as J.J. Abrams? For nearly all of its 43-year existence - all ten previous films and seven TV series - the franchise was largely a subcultural (read: nerd-based) phenomenon. Under Abrams (Lost, Mission: Impossible III), this film goes where no Star Trek has gone before: the realm of pop-culture cool.
To start, the film looks amazing. The visuals are nothing short of breathtaking; be it the jellyfish-esque space ship of Romulan villain Nero (Eric Bana) or the sequences of destruction he wreaks upon planet Vulcan, one thing is clear: the effects have finally caught up with us from the 1970s. Another point of success is the acting. Abrams's team of mostly lesser-knowns turns in a group of effective performances in not particularly demanding roles. Kudos to Chris Pine (Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Simon Pegg (Quinto) in particular.
Unfortunately, the film's problems lie in its script. The story stumbles at times, and is rife with sci-fi clichés. Given the "origins" nature of the film, one can forgive writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, though their previous work on Transformers may make one wary of any future involvement here. However, in watching, you get the impression that sequels will only improve the franchise. Star Trek is still an enjoyable film and a really exhilarating experience. Give it a better script next time around, and we can be sure Abrams' vision will, in fact, live long and prosper.
2.5 stars out of 4
Hey all!
Just gotten back from school for the summer, and you know what that means: Ahh, Cinema... is back up and running!
However, I'll be writing in a different format for my reviews. Everything will be shorter - 2 or 3 paragraphs. I'm cutting plot summary, because a lot of the movies are older movies anyway and summarizing the plot of a 30-year-old movie everyone's already seen (like The Godfather) just seems a bit pointless. Apologies for the new movies, but this format is going to be universal as far as this blog is concerned. Though that might change; we'll see.
Anyway, look for my first review of the summer in a little while. Hope you'll keep up!
-Dan
Oddly enough, one of the first things you consider while watching The Great Escape has nothing to do with the movie itself. It's most likely because there are so few flaws in the film, but as it unfolds, you actually start think of other overblown, less successful war movies. We all know these - the ones that rely on their subject matter alone for their acclaim, instead of actual filmmaking merit. In many cases, they're successful films, but nowhere near as good as the masses claim. The Great Escape outshines them all for two primary reasons:
